Ex Parte Derek W. Grinstead v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-24-00411-CR
Ex parte Derek W. Grinstead
FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-DC-18-207262, THE HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Derek W. Grinstead, 1 an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
filed a post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure that was subsequently denied by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals (CCA) without written order on May 22, 2024. See Tex. Code Crim. App. art. 11.07.
Grinstead, appearing pro se, now seeks to appeal that denial. 2
Article 11.07 provides the exclusive remedy for post-conviction relief from a
felony conviction in which the applicant seeks relief from a judgment imposing a penalty other
than death. See id. The article vests complete jurisdiction over such relief with the CCA. See
1 We previously affirmed Grinstead’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault. See
Grinstead v. State, No. 03-19-00848-CR, 2021 WL 5457008, at *11 (Tex. App.—Austin
Nov. 19, 2021, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
2 In a docketing statement filed with this Court, Grinstead states that “[t]his appeal is to
request findings of fact and conclusions of law from the district trial court.” Such a complaint is,
however, also “governed by article 11.07 and, therefore, properly heard by the court of criminal
appeals.” Martin v. State, No. 03-10-00075-CR, 2010 WL 3431681, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin
Aug. 31, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see In re Garcia,
363 S.W.3d 819, 822 n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.).
id., at §§ 3, 5. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over criminal-law matters pertaining to
proceedings under article 11.07, including appellate review of applications denied by the CCA.
See In re Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 819, 822 n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.) (“Courts of
appeals have no jurisdiction over criminal-law matters pertaining to proceedings under article
11.07.”); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196–97 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig.
proceeding) (observing intermediate appellate courts lack jurisdiction over “post-conviction
writs of habeas corpus in felony cases” under article 11.07); see also Ex parte Griffin,
No. 03-23-00093-CR, 2023 WL 2617798, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 24, 2023, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal from
CCA’s denial of article 11.07 habeas application). This appeal is therefore dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Ex parte Griffin, 2023 WL 2617798, at *1.
__________________________________________
Edward Smith, Justice
Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: July 31, 2024
Do Not Publish
2