Ex parte Drake Jordan Finch (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-22-00226-CR EX PARTE DRAKE JORDAN FINCH ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS August 12, 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Drake Jordan Finch, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for “leave to file a writ of error” with this Court, challenging his 2015 conviction for aggravated assault.1 Because Finch seeks post-conviction relief from a final felony conviction, we construe the motion as an application for writ of habeas corpus and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. Intermediate courts of appeals do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (limiting original habeas jurisdiction of intermediate appellate courts to civil cases); Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d We affirmed Finch’s conviction in Finch v. State, No. 07-15-00104-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3099, at *10 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 7, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 1 586, 588–89 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). That jurisdiction instead rests with the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the county courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05; Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d at 588. Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to grant post-conviction habeas relief in felony cases. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a); Ex parte Alexander, 685 S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). For these reasons, we dismiss Finch’s application for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction.2 Per Curiam Do not publish. 2 Finch may be entitled to habeas relief by filing an application for writ of habeas corpus with the clerk of the court in which the conviction being challenged was obtained, returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07. 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.