Ex parte Larry Charles Webb--Appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00109-CR

Ex parte Larry Charles Webb

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM Opinion

Before the Court is Larry Charles Webb s pro se First Motion for Extension of Time to File Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 11.07, which Webb has filed with this Court in connection with trial court cause no. 2006-850-C2 in the 54th District Court of McLennan County. According to information received from the District Clerk of McLennan County, the trial court sentenced Webb to twenty-five years imprisonment for burglary of a habitation pursuant to a plea agreement on April 12, 2007.

[T]he exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to [article] 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ex parte Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. App. Waco 2006, no pet.) (quoting Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)). This Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a post-conviction felony habeas application. Id.; In re Trevino, 79 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Nor does this Court have jurisdiction to entertain a motion for an extension of time to file a post-conviction felony habeas application.

The prayer for relief in Webb s motion requests an extension of time to file a petition for discretionary review. However, a motion requesting an extension of time for filing such a petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 68.2(c). In addition, a petition for discretionary review is employed to review a court of appeals decision in a criminal case. Id. 68.1. Webb did not appeal his conviction. Therefore, this Court has not issued a decision in Webb s case which would be subject to review.

This Court does not have post-conviction felony habeas jurisdiction. Nor does this Court have jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for filing a petition for discretionary review. Therefore, Webb s First Motion for Extension of Time to File Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 11.07 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and this proceeding is likewise dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Trevino, 79 S.W.3d at 796.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

(Chief Justice Gray dissents. A separate opinion will not issue. He notes, however, that a majority of the Court has dispensed with the service requirement, has gone outside the record by affirmatively seeking out evidence from the district clerk, and dispensed with any procedure normally necessary before evidence may be properly considered all without notice to Webb that they are doing this and that the evidence so obtained and used will result in the dismissal of a proceeding they choose to characterize as an original proceeding. I cannot join this. I note my dissent.)

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 16, 2008

Do not publish

[OT06]