in Re Maurice Bluitt

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00420-CV
IN RE MAURICE BLUITT RELATOR
------------
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
------------
Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this court
order the trial court to rule on relator’s article 11.07 application for writ of habeas
corpus, which he filed with the trial court on January 12, 2010. The court is of the
opinion that the petition should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
An intermediate court of appeals has no jurisdiction over a post-conviction
application for writ of habeas corpus in a felony case. See Padieu v. Court of
Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see
also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2013). Similarly, an
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
intermediate appellate court has no authority to compel a trial court to rule on
matters related to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See In re McAfee, 53
S.W.3d 715, 717–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).
―Should an applicant find it necessary to complain about an action or inaction of
the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the [Texas]
Court of Criminal Appeals.‖ Id. at 718 (citing Tex. Const. art. V, § 5). Because
we have no jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against the trial court here
regarding a pending article 11.07 proceeding, we dismiss relator’s petition for
want of jurisdiction. See id.; see also Padieu, 392 S.W.3d at 117.
Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
DELIVERED: December 13, 2013
2