in Re: William-Glenn Bulington, Jr.

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00006-CR
______________________________
IN RE: WILLIAM-GLENN BULINGTON, JR.
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William-Glenn Bulington, Jr., has filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court.
Bulington claims that the indictment charging him with capital murder in June 2004 is void
because it lists one of the complainants therein simply as “John Doe.” Bulington alleges that the
trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case, convict him of capital murder, and sentence him to
life in prison. Bulington asks this Court to dismiss the indictment and to enter a judgment of
acquittal.
We grant the extraordinary relief of mandamus only when the trial court has clearly abused
its discretion or failed to perform a mandatory act and the relator lacks an adequate appellate
remedy. In re Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 270, 271 (Tex. 2008) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and lower courts have
recognized that “the exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts
is through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.” Olivo v. State,
918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); accord In re Harrison, 187 S.W.3d 199, 200
(Tex. App.─Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding).
Bulington appealed his capital murder conviction to this Court in cause number
06-04-00135-CR, and on November 1, 2005, this Court issued its opinion. Bulington was
afforded ample opportunity in his appeal to raise the issue of which he now complains, i.e., the
alleged defective indictment.
2
Here, Bulington further indicates that he filed a writ of habeas corpus in May 2007, which
relief was denied. Hence, Bulington has, heretofore, taken advantage of his exclusive
post-conviction remedy.
Further, Bulington asks this Court to directly dismiss his indictment and enter a judgment
of acquittal. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a “judge of a district
or county court in the court of appeals district.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (Vernon
2004).
The relief requested is beyond the scope of the mandamus authority of this Court.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: January 21, 2010
Date Decided: January 22, 2010
Do Not Publish
3