in Re William Arthur McIntosh

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-19-00442-CR
No. 10-19-00446-CR
No. 10-19-00447-CR
No. 10-19-00448-CR
No. 10-19-00449-CR
No. 10-19-00450-CR
No. 10-19-00451-CR
No. 10-19-00452-CR
No. 10-19-00453-CR
No. 10-19-00454-CR
IN RE WILLIAM ARTHUR MCINTOSH
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William Arthur McIntosh, an inmate, requests that we declare his judgments of
conviction void and grant writs of mandamus in ten separate final felony convictions
from 1994. He argues the failure of the trial court to file an anti-bribery affidavit rendered
the convictions “null and void.”
Once a felony conviction becomes final, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
has jurisdiction to review post-conviction collateral attacks on those convictions. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d
241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).
Accordingly, because McIntosh complains about final felony convictions and only
the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction regarding his complaints, McIntosh’s
petitions for writ of mandamus are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Petitions dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed December 18, 2019
Do not publish
[OT06]
In re McIntosh Page 2