Ex Parte Craig MacK ( 2014 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14-00356-CR
EX PARTE CRAIG MACK
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013-2073-C2 & 2013-2331-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Craig Mack has filed a “motion for self-representation” and supporting affidavit
that seeks what is in effect post-conviction habeas relief.1 He alleges ineffective
assistance of counsel in connection with his felony plea bargain and denial of his
alleged attempts to represent himself. Among other things, he seeks a right to appeal.
An intermediate court of appeals has no jurisdiction over a post-conviction
application for writ of habeas corpus in a felony case. See Ex parte Martinez, 175 S.W.3d
510, 512-13 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 11.07(3)(a), (b)); Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294, 294-95 (Tex. App.—
1
The motion lacks proof of service. A copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all
parties (i.e., the district attorney) and must contain proof of service. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 52.2. To expedite
this matter, we implement Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend these requirements. Id. 2.
Eastland 2003, no pet.) (same). The Court of Criminal Appeals and this court have
recognized that “the exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in
Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to [article] 11.07.” Olivo v.
State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see Ex parte Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d
260, 261 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.). Furthermore, the courts of appeals do not
have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. Ex parte Hearon, 3
S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding) (citing Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d
833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.); and Sanders v. State, 771 S.W.2d 645,
650 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1989, pet. ref’d)); Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex.
App.—El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding).
Because we have no jurisdiction over what is in effect a post-conviction habeas
corpus proceeding in a felony case, we dismiss Mack’s motion.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed December 11, 2014
Do not publish
[OT06]
Ex parte Mack Page 2