in Re Tacuma Shareef ( 2010 )

Opinion issued July 28, 2010

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-10-00162-CR

———————————

IN RE TACUMA SHAREEF, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          On July 16, 2002, relator, Tacuma Shareef,  was convicted of the offense of aggravated robbery, in trial court cause number 912237. Relator appealed his conviction, and the case was assigned to this Court as appellate number 01-02-00751-CR.  On October 9, 2003, this Court issued an opinion affirming relator's conviction in cause number 912237.  See Shareef v. State, 121 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Our  mandate of affirmance issued on February 24, 2004. 

          Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Clerk of this Court in which he asks that we again review the written judgment of the trial court in cause number 912237.  Relator requests that this Court “set aside or vacate” the “void” judgment of the trial court on the ground that the judgment incorrectly states that appellant was convicted of aggravated assault.  In the alternative, relator requests that we “order the trial court to set aside or vacate relator’s void judgment of conviction . . . and that the relator be returned to Harris County for further disposition of this case, or be released from custody forthwith.”  

          Relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because he has not served the respondent trial court judge with a copy of the petition for writ of mandamus.  Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. 

          Moreover, relator is seeking post-conviction relief on a final felony conviction. Jurisdiction for the relief requested by relator to declare a judgment of conviction “void” has passed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2009).  This Court has no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases.  See Board of Pardons’ & Paroles v. Court of Appeals for the Eight District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 183 ( Tex. (Tex. Crim. App. App. 1995); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692.  Also see, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.  11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2009).

          Along with his petition for writ of mandamus, relator filed a motion for leave to file his petition.  Motions for leave to file petitions in original proceedings are no longer required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. The motion for leave to file is denied.

          The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.[1]

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hanks, and Higley.

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

[1]           The record on appeal reflects that the trial court entered a judgment convicting appellant for the offense of aggravated assault. However, the appellate record for trial court cause number 912237, appellate number 01-02-00751-CR, contains a copy of the verdict, which states “We, the Jury, having found the defendant, Tacuma Shareef, guilty of the felony offense of aggravated robbery, do further find the allegations in Enhancement Paragraph One and Enhancement Paragraph Two are true and assess his punishment at confinement in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life.”  A judgment may be reformed by the trial court to show the correct offense of which the accused was found guilty by a jury or court. Ex parte Dopps, 723 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App. App. 1986).  A judgment nunc pro tunc is the appropriate remedy to correct a trial court’s judgment that does not reflect the judgment that was actually rendered by the trial court. Alvarez v. State, 605 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).  Also see, Allen v. State, 20 S.W.3d 164, 165 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.) citing Ex parte Dopps, 723 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. Crim. App. App. 1986).