eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2007-04

in Re Byron Lynn Lucas ( 2007 )


Menu:

  • In The



    Court of Appeals



    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



    ____________________



    NO. 09-07-157 CV

    ____________________



    IN RE BYRON LYNN LUCAS



    Original Proceeding


    MEMORANDUM OPINION  

    On March 22, 2007, Byron Lynn Lucas filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The relator seeks an order to compel the trial court to delete cumulation orders from judgments signed in 1999 by the current judge's predecessor in office. Lucas did not challenge the cumulation order in his appeal. See Lucas v. State, Nos. 09-99-556-560 CR, 2001 WL 62919 (Tex. App.--Beaumont Jan. 24, 2001, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). Lucas admits that he challenged the cumulation orders in a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, and the Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief without issuing a written order. Lucas also unsuccessfully sought federal habeas relief from the cumulation order. See Lucas v. Cockrell, No. Civ.A.1:02CV259, 2003 WL 24025758 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2003), affirmed sub nom. Lucas v. Dretke, 125 Fed.App'x 542 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 219, 163 L. Ed. 2d 213 (2005).

    The documents submitted with the petition do not support the relator's claim that the State prosecuted the five cases in a single criminal action. Cf. LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Furthermore, article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive post-appellate vehicle for challenging a final felony conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon 2005); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

    We may grant mandamus relief if relator demonstrates that the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial under the relevant facts and law, and that relator has no other adequate legal remedy. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The relator has not shown that he could not have challenged the cumulation order through regular appeal or habeas corpus. See Banales v. Court of Appeals for Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 93 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

    The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

    WRIT DENIED.

    PER CURIAM

    Opinion Delivered April 12, 2007

    Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.