in Re Gilberto Tamayo Villarreal ( 2012 )

NUMBER 13-12-00153-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE GILBERTO TAMAYO VILLARREAL
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Vela, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Gilberto Tamayo Villarreal, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus and a “Motion Opposing the Applicant’s Reply of 11.07 Writ of Habeas
Corpus” on March 5, 2012.2 Through these documents, relator alleges that the trial
court has not timely ruled on relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus under article
1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2
This Court previously affirmed relator’s conviction for capital murder. See Villarreal v. State, No.
13-09-00023-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 4414, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 10, 2010, pet. ref’d)
(mem. op., not designated for publication).
11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
11.07 (West Supp. 2011).
Article 11.07 vests jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from otherwise final
felony convictions in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id.; Board of Pardons &
Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1995); In re Watson, 253 S.W.3d 319, 320 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig.
proceeding). The courts of appeals have no role in criminal law matters pertaining to
proceedings under article 11.07 and have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in
connection with such proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, §§ 3; 5;
Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig.
proceeding); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig.
proceeding); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001,
orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this
matter. Accordingly, relator's petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Relator’s
“Motion Opposing the Applicant’s Reply of 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus” is likewise
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
6th day of March, 2012.
2