Ex Parte Carlos Rivas Appeal from 187th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION Nos. 04-21-00379-CR, 04-21-00380-CR EX PARTE Carlos RIVAS From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2016CR9547-W3, 2016CR9548-W2 Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 27, 2021 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the denial of his 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 (providing “[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 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 04-21-00379-CR, 04-21-00380-CR (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 Dist., 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). On September 10, 2021, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond to our order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.