In re Michael Joseph Rosenberg Appeal from 49th Judicial District Court of Zapata County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00799-CR IN RE Michael Joseph ROSENBERG Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 26, 2014 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On November 17, 2014, relator Michael Joseph Rosenberg filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to grant his application for habeas corpus relief. In 2003, relator was convicted of murder following a guilty plea and was sentenced to seventy years’ confinement. On October 20, 2004, this court affirmed the judgment of conviction in Cause No. 04-03-00812-CR. 2 Relator’s felony conviction thus 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. 1485, styled The State of Texas v. Michael Joseph Rosenberg, pending in the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas, the Honorable Jose A. Lopez presiding. 2 See Rosenberg v. State, No. 04-03-00812-CR, 2004 WL 2346269, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 20, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 04-14-00799-CR 2014); 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 postconviction 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.