Robert Martin v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00448-CR
Robert Martin, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-DC-95-95530, HONORABLE DAVID CRAIN, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Martin, an inmate proceeding pro se, appeals from an order denying his
motion to vacate his conviction for want of jurisdiction. After considering Martin’s brief and the
record before us, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal. See In re Garcia,
363 S.W.3d 819, 821 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.) (“As an appellate court, we have the power
to determine sua sponte the threshold issue of whether we have jurisdiction over the appeal.”).
In 2001, a jury convicted Martin of aggravated sexual assault, and the district court
sentenced him to life in prison and a $10,000 fine. This Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.
See Martin v. State, No. 03-02-00435-CR, 2003 WL 21087732 (Tex. App.—Austin May 15, 2003,
pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Earlier this year, Martin filed with the district
court a pro se “Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction” arguing that his conviction was void
because the district court lacked jurisdiction to try him. The district court denied the motion. This
appeal ensued.
This is not the first time that Martin has filed a post-trial motion seeking to vacate his
conviction because the district court allegedly lacked jurisdiction. In 2009, Martin filed a “Motion
to Set Aside and Vacate a Void Judgment” arguing his conviction was void because the indictment
was invalid. Martin v. State, No. 03-10-00075-CR, 2010 WL 3431681 (Tex. App.—Austin
Aug. 31, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (Martin II). The district court
denied the motion. On appeal, this Court determined that Martin’s motion was substantively a
post-conviction writ of habeas corpus because he challenged the jurisdiction of the district court.
Id. at *2; see Ex parte Johnson, 541 S.W.3d 827, 829 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (“In general, habeas
relief is available only for jurisdictional defects and violations of constitutional and fundamental
rights.”) (cleaned up). We dismissed Martin’s appeal of that order for want of jurisdiction because:
If a person is in custody, article 11.07 of the code of criminal
procedure governs the manner by which he may seek post-conviction
habeas corpus relief from a final felony conviction. Ex parte
Williams, 239 S.W.3d 859, 861-62 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no
pet.); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07. Because Martin is
in custody pursuant to a felony conviction, exclusive habeas corpus
jurisdiction has been given to the court of criminal appeals by article
11.07. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, §§ 3(a), 5.
Martin II, 2010 WL 3431681, at *2.
Our reasoning in Martin II applies equally here. Martin remains in custody and
similarly argues that his conviction should be aside because the district court lacked jurisdiction over
2
him. For the reasons set out in Martin II, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.1 See id.;
see also Foster v. State, No. 01-16-00017-CR, 2016 WL 1388985, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Apr. 7, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing inmate’s
appeal of post-conviction motion for reduction in sentence because it amounted to an application for
habeas relief).
_________________________________________
Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: August 24, 2018
Do Not Publish
1
We dismiss Martin’s pending “Motion for Stay and Abeyance” as moot.
3