Ex Parte Stephen Wayne Richardson ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    No. 04-22-00636-CR
    EX PARTE Stephen Wayne RICHARDSON
    From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2010-CR-10629
    Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding
    PER CURIAM
    Sitting:          Beth Watkins, Justice
    Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
    Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
    Delivered and Filed: November 9, 2022
    DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
    On June 11, 2012, appellant Stephen Wayne Richardson was convicted of manslaughter, a
    second-degree felony. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 19.04; Richardson v. State, No. 04-12-00379-
    CV, 
    2013 WL 5653400
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 16, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not
    designated for publication). Appellant timely appealed the trial court’s judgment, and we affirmed
    his conviction in 2013. See Richardson, 
    2013 WL 5653400
    , at *1–3. Appellant’s conviction is
    final. See In re Richardson, No. 04-22-00065-CR, 
    2022 WL 465405
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—San
    Antonio Feb. 16, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
    On September 26, 2022, appellant filed a pro se “Motion for Appeal” that appears to
    challenge “the State’s response to Applicant’s[/]Relator’s Petition for Applicant’s for Habeas
    Corpus (No Indictment & No 180 day Trial).” The clerk’s record, which was filed on October 4,
    04-22-00636-CR
    2022, contains the judgment of conviction signed on June 11, 2012, but it does not contain any
    other judgments. The record also does not contain a document entitled “Applicant’s[/]Relator’s
    Petition for Applicant’s for Habeas Corpus (No Indictment & No 180 day Trial)” or any response
    to or ruling on such a document.
    In general, we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a criminal case only when the trial
    court has signed a judgment of conviction or other appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2);
    Apolinar v. State, 
    820 S.W.2d 792
    , 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A defendant’s notice of appeal
    must be filed within thirty days after an appealable order has been signed when a motion for new
    trial has not been filed, or within ninety days if a motion for new trial has been filed. TEX. R. APP.
    P. 26.2. Additionally, under the exclusive procedure outlined in article 11.07, only the convicting
    trial court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have jurisdiction to review the merits of a
    post-conviction habeas petition; there is no role for the intermediate courts of appeals in the
    statutory scheme. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (providing “[a]fter conviction the
    procedure outlined in this Act shall be exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no
    force and effect in discharging the prisoner”). Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has
    jurisdiction to grant post-conviction release from confinement for persons with a felony
    conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3; Hoang v. State, 
    872 S.W.2d 694
    , 697
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); In re Stone, 
    26 S.W.3d 568
    , 569 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, orig.
    proceeding). The intermediate courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of
    habeas corpus in felony cases. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the
    Eighth District, 
    910 S.W.2d 481
    , 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding); see In re
    Coronado, 
    980 S.W.2d 691
    , 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Ngo,
    No. 02-16-00425-CR, 
    2016 WL 7405836
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 22, 2016) (mem.
    op., not designated for publication) (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).
    -2-
    04-22-00636-CR
    On October 6, 2022, we issued an order explaining that the clerk’s record did not appear
    to contain an appealable order for which appellant may timely file a notice of appeal in this court.
    We therefore ordered appellant to file a response showing why this appeal should not be dismissed
    for want of jurisdiction by November 7, 2022. In our order, we stated that if appellant failed to
    satisfactorily respond within the time provided, we would dismiss the appeal for want of
    jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
    On October 28, 2022, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a letter stating that he had
    reviewed the record and “cannot locate any appealable order for which Appellant may timely file
    a notice of appeal in this court.” We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    PER CURIAM
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-22-00636-CR

Filed Date: 11/9/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/15/2022