Ex Parte Samuel Aleman Pineda ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-15-00376-CR
EX PARTE SAMUEL ALEMAN PINEDA, APPELLANT
On Appeal from the 140th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008-418,759, Honorable Jim Bob Darnell, Presiding
October 27, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant Samuel Aleman Pineda appeals a trial court order denying his motion
for appointment of counsel for purposes of post-conviction litigation. We dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 2006. In 2015,
Appellant filed a motion in the trial court to appoint counsel to represent him in filing an
application for writ of habeas corpus under art. 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure. The trial court denied the motion, and appellant appealed the order.
Exclusive jurisdiction over post-conviction relief from final felony convictions
vests in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Padieu v. Court of Appeals of TX.,
Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see also TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5. Consequently, intermediate “appellate courts have
scrupulously declined to intervene in pending art. 11.07 actions, noting [the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals’] exclusive jurisdiction.” Padieu, 392 S.W.3d at 117 (citing In re
McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding)).
Article 11.07 simply contains no role for the intermediate courts of appeals; the only
courts to which art. 11.07 refers are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal
Appeals. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 718.
Moreover, a decision to deny appointed counsel is not an appealable order given
that it involves a preliminary matter. Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2010) (involving the denial of counsel to assist in securing post-conviction
DNA testing). This coupled with our lack of jurisdiction over art. 11.07 proceedings
leads us to conclude that we have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal at bar.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Per Curiam
Do not publish
2