In re Robert Luis Colon Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-15-00373-CR IN RE Robert Luis COLON Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 8, 2015 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On June 22, 2015, relator Robert Luis Colon filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus challenging his convictions in five underlying criminal matters. In 1984, relator was convicted of the felony offenses of indecency with a child, aggravated rape of a child, and three counts of burglary of a habitation. On August 30, 1985, this court affirmed relator’s convictions in Appeal No. 04-84-00177-CR. Colon v. State, 696 S.W.2d 267, 268 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1985, pet. ref’d). Therefore, relator’s felony convictions 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. Crim. App. 1991); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 83CR2420, 83CR2421, 83CR2422, 83CR2423 and 83CR2424, styled The State of Texas v. Robert Luis Colon, in the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. 04-15-00373-CR (West 2015); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (en banc) (holding “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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.