In re Maurice A. Moses, Relator--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00526-CR IN RE Maurice MOSES Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 31, 2012 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On August 20, 2012, relator Maurice Moses filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining the trial court has failed to rule on his motion to obtain a free copy of the reporter s record from his underlying felony conviction. In 2009, relator was convicted of murder and was sentenced to life in prison. On April 13, 2011, this court affirmed the judgment in Cause No. 0409-00211-CR. Therefore, relator s felony conviction became final. Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to postconviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CR-8924, styled State of Texas v. Maurice A. Moses, in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angus K. McGinty presiding. However, relator s complaint is directed at the Honorable Philip Kazen, presiding judge of the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. 04-12-00526-CR 2008); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding that Article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction. ). Because the relief sought in relator s petition relates to post-conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction, we are without jurisdiction to consider his petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, relator s petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.