Jorge Venustiano Porras v. State ( 2013 )

Opinion issued December 31, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00852-CR
———————————
JORGE VENUSTIANO PORRAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 185th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 818904
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
We originally issued our memorandum opinion in this appeal on
December 3, 2013. Appellant, Jorge Venustiano Porras, has filed a motion for
rehearing. We deny the motion for rehearing, vacate our earlier judgment,
withdraw our previous opinion, and issue this opinion in its place.
Appellant, Jorge Venustiano Porras, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s
order denying appellant’s “motion for ‘relief from judgment to vacate judgment.’”
We dismiss the appeal.
In 1999, appellant pleaded guilty to capital murder. In accordance with the
plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at life in prison. On August
23, 2013, appellant filed the present motion, asserting that the judgment and
sentence were void and requesting that the trial court “vacate defendant’s judgment
and sentence.” The trial court denied appellant’s motion and appellant filed a
notice of appeal.
Appellant is confined in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice as the result of a final felony conviction and seeks relief from
that confinement. The habeas corpus procedure set out in article 11.07 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for felony post-conviction
relief in state court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp.
2013); see also Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910
S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has
jurisdiction in final post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; see also Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 910 S.W.2d at
483. “There is no role for the courts of appeals in the procedure under article
11.07.” Howell v. State, No. 07-11-00103-CR, 2011 WL 1878643, at *1 (Tex.
2
App.—Amarillo May 17, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(citations omitted).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3