In Re: William Sedric Autrey v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed April 6, 2023
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00254-CV
IN RE WILLIAM SEDRIC AUTREY, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 429-81194-10
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Breedlove
Opinion by Justice Molberg
William Sedric Autrey was convicted of four counts of engaging in organized
criminal activity and sentenced to four consecutive life terms. Relator appealed his
convictions but then voluntarily dismissed the appeal. See Autrey v. State, No. 05-
14-01381-CR, 2015 WL 5883730 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 8, 2015, no pet.) (per
curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The Court issued its mandate on
October 8, 2015.
In this original proceeding, relator seeks mandamus relief regarding an order
issued by the 416th Judicial District Court in 2010 permitting police to attach a
mobile tracking device to his vehicle. Relator contends the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence gleaned from a traffic stop he
alleges occurred because of information from the tracking device. Relator petitions
to have the tracking order declared void, the evidence from the traffic stop
suppressed, and to have his convictions overturned to restore him to the status of
awaiting trial.1
Relator’s petition, although couched as seeking mandamus relief, seeks to
undermine his convictions and thus actually requests article 11.07 habeas relief. See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, §1; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802
S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d
356, 356–57 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam);
In re Turcios, No. 05-20-00705-CV, 2020 WL 4745544, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Aug. 17, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op, not designated for publication). After a
final felony conviction, the court of criminal appeals has exclusive authority to grant
post-conviction habeas relief. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 5; Bd. of
Pardons and Paroles ex rel. Keene v. The Eighth Court of Appeals, 910 S.W.2d 481,
483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
1
This case addresses relator’s request for mandamus relief against the 296th Judicial District Court. In
the same mandamus petition, relator requests relief on the same grounds on a separate conviction for
aggravated robbery in the 204th Judicial District Court. We address relator’s mandamus action against the
204th Judicial District Court separately in cause no. 05-23-00255-CV. Relator’s petition also raises the
issue of mandamus against the 416th Judicial District Court for issuing the tracking order. Because it
appears that the tracking order was used only in the proceedings in the 204th and 296th Judicial District
Courts, and because we conclude we have no jurisdiction over the issues relator raises, the Court declines
to open a separate case regarding the 416th Judicial District Court. We note that in subsequent letters
seeking to explain his mandamus filings, relator has stated that he intended to seek mandamus relief against
the 204th and 296th Judicial District Courts.
–2–
Relator contends that because his convictions arose from the void tracking
order, they are not final, and he should not be required to seek habeas relief under
article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure in the court of criminal appeals.
However, a conviction becomes final for purposes of applying article 11.07 when
the appellate court issues its mandate. Ex parte Webb, 270 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). Because the mandate issued on relator’s case in 2015, his
convictions are final. Id.We do not have jurisdiction to consider an original application for writ of
habeas corpus arising from a criminal proceeding. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 11.05; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d); Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 356–57;
Turcios, 2020 WL 4745544, at *1. When a relator files a petition for writ of
mandamus requesting only habeas relief that should be brought in an article 11.07
habeas application, the proper course is to dismiss the petition for want of
jurisdiction. Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 356–57; Turcios, 2020 WL 4745544, at *2.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.
/Ken Molberg/
KEN MOLBERG
230254F.P05 JUSTICE
–3–