in Re Daryl Campbell v. State ( 2012 )

Opinion issued June 28, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00498-CR
———————————
IN RE DARYL CAMPBELL, Relator
On Appeal from the 180th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 12632101010
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Daryl Campbell, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus,
contending that the trial court has abused its discretion in not ruling upon his
Motion to Enter Judgment and Sentence Nunc Pro Tunc. Campbell asserts that he
filed this motion in the trial court on March 15, 2012.
Campbell’s petition reflects that the motion about which he complains was
filed for the purpose of obtaining relief from his final felony conviction for
robbery. The exclusive post-conviction remedy from final felony convictions is a
writ of habeas corpus. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon 2005).
Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction
habeas corpus proceedings. See id.; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App.
1995); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2001, orig. proceeding). Thus, this Court is without authority to grant the relief
Washington seeks. See Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene, 910 S.W.2d at
483; In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 717–18; In re Murphy, No. 01–11–00120–CR,
2011 WL 1326032, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] Apr. 7, 2011, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.).
We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
2