Jordan Netherly v. State ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00085-CR
Jordan NETHERLY,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017CR11494
Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 21, 2019
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
Appellant, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the trial court’s denial of her post-conviction
application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to article 11.07. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a). Under the exclusive procedure outlined in article 11.07, only the
convicting trial court and the court of criminal appeals have jurisdiction to review the merits of a
post-conviction habeas petition; there is no role for the intermediate courts of appeals in the
statutory scheme. Id. art. 11.07, § 5 (“[a]fter conviction the procedure outlined in this Act shall be
exclusive and any other proceeding shall be void and of no force and effect in discharging the
04-19-00085-CR
prisoner”). Only the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant post-conviction release
from confinement for persons with a felony conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07,
§ 3; Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); In re Stone, 26 S.W.3d 568,
569 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, orig. proceeding). The intermediate courts of appeals have no
jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles
ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App.
1995) (orig. proceeding); see In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1998, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Ngo, No. 02-16-00425-CR, 2016 WL 7405836, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Dec. 22, 2016) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (appeal dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction). Therefore, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should
not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBISH
-2-