Opinion
No. 01-03-00705-CV.
Opinion issued July 17, 2003.
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Earl Silas Bingley TDC #399543 Clements Unit #37 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606, for relator.
Ed Wells, Clerk 14th Court of Appeals 1307 San Jacinto, 11th Floor Houston, TX 77002, for respondent.
Panel consists of Justices TAFT, JENNINGS, and HANKS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator has filed a second petition for writ of mandamus complaining that respondent Fourteenth Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed his 25-year sentence for aggravated sexual assault. See Bingley v. State, No. C14-85-488-CR, slip op. at 3-4 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no pet.) (not designated for publication).
We denied relator's first petition because this Court has no mandamus jurisdiction over the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. In re Bingley, No. 01-03-00590-CV, slip op. at 1-2 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 19, 2003, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication). See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Mandamus jurisdiction over the courts of appeals lies only with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in criminal cases. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924, 926-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).
In addition, even if we construed relator's document as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, we have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. That jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Board of Pardons Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2003).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.