in Re Reginald Bernard Hatton

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00121-CR
No. 10-18-00122-CR
IN RE REGINALD BERNARD HATTON
Original Proceedings
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In combined petitions for writ of mandamus, Reginald Bernard Hatton requests
this Court to compel the trial court to modify two judgments in final felony convictions
which stack each of Hatton’s sentences.
Although the courts of appeals have mandamus jurisdiction over criminal law
matters concurrent with the mandamus jurisdiction of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987),
Hatton has an adequate remedy at law: a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. See Ater
v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). And only the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015); Ater, 802 S.W.2d at 243; In re McAfee,
53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).
Accordingly, because Hatton complains about final felony convictions and only
the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction regarding Hatton’s complaints, Hatton’s
petitions for writ of mandamus are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Petitions dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed April 18, 2018
Do not publish
[OT06]
In re Hatton Page 2