Ex Parte Craig E. Mendenhall ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                   IN THE
    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-12-00404-CR
    EX PARTE CRAIG E. MENDENHALL
    Original Proceeding
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Craig E. Mendenhall filed an article 11.25 petition for writ of habeas corpus, also
    known as a ‚medical writ,‛ with this Court. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.25
    (West 2005). He is serving time for a final felony conviction in a Texas Department of
    Criminal Justice facility in Potter County. He also filed for relief under Article 5, Section
    6 of the Texas Constitution.
    By letter dated November 6, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified Mendenhall
    that his proceeding was subject to dismissal because it appeared this Court had no
    jurisdiction to grant his petition. Mendenhall was further warned that the Court would
    dismiss this proceeding unless, within 21 days of the date of the letter, a response was
    filed showing grounds for continuing the proceeding. Mendenhall filed a response but
    it does not show grounds for continuing the proceeding.
    This Court does not have jurisdiction to grant an 11.25 writ of habeas corpus. See
    TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 11.05; 11.25 (West 2005); see also Ex parte Baltimore, 
    616 S.W.2d 205
    , 206-207 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (‚the phrase ‘legal custody’ as used…does
    not contemplate a release after conviction of a felony.‛).        Even if the Court has
    jurisdiction to grant an 11.25 writ after a felony conviction, it does not have jurisdiction
    over Potter County where it appears the writ, if available, should be filed. See TEX.
    CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.27 (West 2005); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(k) (West
    Supp. 2012). Further, because the Court does not have jurisdiction over Potter County,
    it does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ pursuant to Article 5, § 6 of the Texas
    Constitution.
    This original proceeding is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. Mendenhall’s
    motion for leave to file his petition is dismissed as moot.
    TOM GRAY
    Chief Justice
    Before Chief Justice Gray,
    Justice Davis, and
    Justice Scoggins
    Petition dismissed
    Opinion delivered and filed December 6, 2012
    Do not publish
    [CR25]
    Ex parte Mendenhall                                                                   Page 2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-12-00404-CR

Filed Date: 12/6/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015