in Re: Richard Calvin Gipson ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                        NO. 12-08-00230-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    §
    IN RE: RICHARD CALVIN GIPSON,
    RELATOR                                                    §     ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    §
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Richard Calvin Gipson seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the Honorable Jack Skeen, Jr.,
    Judge of the 241st District Court, Smith County, Texas, to furnish him a free record. Gipson alleges
    in his petition that he was convicted of intoxication manslaughter, a second degree felony, and his
    conviction is now final. He intends to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus for which he
    needs a copy of his trial record. We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.
    Courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over postconviction writs of habeas corpus in felony
    cases. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. ANN . § 11.07, § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2007); Board of Pardons and
    Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 
    910 S.W.2d 481
    , 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995)
    (jurisdiction to grant postconviction habeas relief lies exclusively with court of criminal appeals).
    Because Gipson requests the record for purposes of pursuing postconviction relief in two felony
    cases, we conclude that we have no jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition.1 See In re
    Trevino, 
    79 S.W.3d 794
    , 795 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding); see also In re
    Donnell, No. 12-06-00092-CV, 
    2006 WL 859658
    , at *1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Mar. 31, 2006, orig.
    proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication); In re McCarty, No. 08-05-00355-CR, 2005
    1
    Although we do not reach the merits of Gipson’s complaint, we note that an indigent defendant is not entitled
    to a free record once he has exhausted his appeal, absent some compelling, recognized reason. See Eubanks v. Mullin,
    909 S.W .2d 574, 576 (Tex. App.–Fort W orth 1995, orig. proceeding); Escobar v. State, 880 S.W .2d 782, 784 (Tex.
    App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, order).
    WL 3330353, at *1 (Tex. App.–El Paso Dec. 8, 2005, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated
    for publication). Therefore, Gipson’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of
    jurisdiction.
    BRIAN HOYLE
    Justice
    Opinion delivered June 4, 2008.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
    (DO NOT PUBLISH)
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-08-00230-CR

Filed Date: 6/4/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/10/2015