in Re: Senrick Wilkerson

DISMISS; and Opinion Filed January 14, 2014.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00005-CV
IN RE SENRICK WILKERSON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F10-01183-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
Relator files this motion seeking a writ of coram nobis and a writ of error. He complains
of false imprisonment based on alleged inaccuracies in his Dallas county arrest records and
purported procedural errors with relation to his arrests and convictions. The facts and issues are
well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein.
The Court’s power to issue writs is statutorily defined. While the Court of Criminal
Appeals has broad constitutional power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, procedendo,
prohibition, and certiorari, this Court's statutory general writ power is limited to “writs necessary
to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” Compare Tex. Const. art. V, § 5(c) (Court of Criminal
Appeals writ power) with TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (West 2004) (court of appeals writ
power). The Court does not have general power to issue other sorts of writs. In re Yates, 193
S.W.3d 151, 152 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); Shelvin v. Lykos, 741
S.W.2d 178, 181 (Tex. App. —Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.). Relator does not allege any
threat to the court’s jurisdiction in an existing appeal and, thus, his petition cannot be construed
as seeking the issuance of a writ under Section 22.221(a) of the Government Code. TEX. GOV'T
CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (West 2004); In re Ruston, 05-06-01014-CV, 2006 WL 2294743 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Aug. 10, 2006, orig. proceeding.).
Accordingly, any writ the relator seeks must be evaluated under the powers granted the
Court under Sections 22.221 (b) and (d) of the Government Code. The Court is statutorily
authorized to issue writs of (1) mandamus against judges of district or county courts and (2)
habeas corpus in civil cases. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 22.221(b), 22.221(d) (West 2004).
Neither of these statutory grants of writ authority permits the court to issue any sort of writ with
respect to post-conviction complaints in criminal proceedings. Only the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals has jurisdiction in post-conviction criminal habeas corpus proceedings. TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2013); In re Curry, 05-08-00064-CV, 2008 WL
311018, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 5, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d
715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). “Article 11.07 contains no
role for the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the Court of
Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 718. Similarly, the Court also lacks jurisdiction
in mandamus proceedings arising from post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. In re
Nickerson, 05-13-01692-CV, 2013 WL 6596878, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 16, 2013, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Curry, 2008 WL 311018, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 5, 2008,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Thus, no matter how the Court construes the relief sought by
relator, the Court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, we DISMISS relator’s petition.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
140005F.P05 JUSTICE
–2–