Ex Parte Marshall S. Hicks ( 2014 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14-00388-CR
EX PARTE MARSHALL S. HICKS
From the 413th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. F44149
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Marshall Shane Hicks was convicted in 2010 of indecency with a child. His
original appeal of that conviction was transferred from this Court to the Thirteenth
Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi). That appeal was dismissed because the conviction
was based on a plea bargain, and Hicks had no right to appeal.
On October 30, 2014, Hicks filed a document entitled “Motion for Judgment to
Correct Clerical Mistake (Nunc Pro Tunc)” as an original proceeding requesting relief
directly from this Court. In re Hicks, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12657, No. 10-14-00343-CR
(Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 20, 2014, orig. proceeding). We dismissed the proceeding on
November 20, 2014 for want of jurisdiction because Hicks asked this Court to correct
the opinion and judgment by the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, and we have no
jurisdiction over the opinions or judgments of other courts of appeals. Id.; see TEX.
CONST. ART. V, § 6(a).
Hicks now has filed a document entitled “Amended Petition Denying Relator
Due Process, Civil Rights Violation Associated with Ineffective Counsel.” We do not
construe this document to be a motion to reconsider our November 20 dismissal
because, rather than asking us to review our previous decision, he asks us to review the
trial court’s actions and decisions regarding Hicks’ plea of guilty in the underlying
criminal proceeding. We, therefore, construe Hicks’ request to be a post-conviction writ
of habeas corpus of a felony conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07
(West 2005). We do not have jurisdiction to grant a post-conviction writ of habeas
corpus of a felony conviction. Id. art. 11.05.
Accordingly, Hicks’ “amended” petition is dismissed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Petition dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed December 18, 2014
Do not publish
[OT06]
In re Hicks Page 2