Jordan Netherly v. The State of Texas Appeal from 290th 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. 04-19-00085-CR Jordan NETHERLY, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CR11494 Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 21, 2019 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the trial court’s denial of her post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to article 11.07. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a). Under the exclusive procedure outlined in article 11.07, only the convicting trial court and the court of criminal appeals have jurisdiction to review the merits of a post-conviction habeas petition; there is no role for the intermediate courts of appeals in the statutory scheme. Id. art. 11.07, § 5 (“[a]fter conviction the procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no force and effect in discharging the 04-19-00085-CR prisoner”). Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant post-conviction release from confinement for persons with a felony conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3; Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); In re Stone, 26 S.W.3d 568, 569 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, orig. proceeding). The intermediate courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding); see In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Ngo, No. 02-16-00425-CR, 2016 WL 7405836, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 22, 2016) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction). Therefore, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBISH -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.