Bentley Mark Jenkins v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-18-00140-CR BENTLEY MARK JENKINS APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. C-4-011060-0410880D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------Appellant Bentley Mark Jenkins appears to attempt to appeal from actions taken either in the trial court or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding his article 11.07 application for writ of habeas corpus. In the application, he complains of his 1991 felony conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and associated ten-year sentence. On April 13, 2018, this court notified 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. the parties that we have no jurisdiction over postconviction applications under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure and no authority to review judgments or orders of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. We warned Appellant that absent a response by May 3, 2018, showing grounds for continuing the appeal, it would be subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We have received no response. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5 (West 2015) (“After 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.”); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (holding that the court of appeals infringed on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s exclusive authority to grant habeas relief from a final felony conviction); State ex rel. Wilson v. Briggs, 171 Tex. Crim. 479, 482, 351 S.W.2d 892, 894 (1961) (“The Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort in this state in criminal matters. This being so, no other court of this state has authority to overrule or circumvent its decisions, or disobey its mandates.”); Ex parte Turner, No. 02-1800020-CR, 2018 WL 1755246, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 12, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 2 PER CURIAM PANEL: PITTMAN, J.; SUDDERTH, C.J.; and BIRDWELL, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: June 21, 2018 3

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.