Ronnie Lynn Bynum v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-03-00395-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

RONNIE LYNN BYNUM,

 
APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Ronnie Lynn Bynum seeks to appeal the trial court's finding that there are no controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of Appellant's confinement. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 
Background

Appellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and was sentenced to eighteen years of imprisonment. Sentence was imposed on March 29, 1991. Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in 1998, which was denied. On October 14, 2003, the trial court received a second application for writ of habeas corpus. In the second application, which was filed pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Appellant complains that he is being denied due process and the proper application of time credits to his sentence.

On November 4, 2003, the State filed a response to Appellant's application. In its response, the State contended that Appellant has failed to show specific facts establishing entitlement to a subsequent review as required by article 11.07, section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. On the same day, the trial court determined that "there are no controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of [Appellant's] confinement." Appellant seeks to appeal the trial court's finding.

 
Discussion

An application for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 must be filed with the clerk of the court in which the conviction being challenged was obtained, and the clerk must assign the application to the convicting court. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, 3(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004). When the application is received by the convicting court, a writ of habeas corpus, returnable to the court of criminal appeals, issues by operation of law. Id. The clerk of the convicting court assigns a file number to the case (ancillary to that of the conviction being challenged), and forwards a copy of the application to the attorney representing the State in the convicting court, who must answer it within fifteen days. Id. Within twenty days of the expiration of the time in which the State is allowed to answer, the convicting court must decide whether there are controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of the applicant's confinement. Id., 3(c). If the convicting court decides there are no such issues, the clerk must immediately transmit to the court of criminal appeals a copy of the application, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made. Id.

Article 11.07, section 5 provides that "[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." Id., 5. The only courts referred to in article 11.07 are the convicting court and the court of criminal appeals. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). The article contains no role for the court of appeals. Id. Consequently, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review the merits of Appellant's appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

 

Opinion delivered December 17, 2003.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Griffith, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)