Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-28-2021
Case Style:
Ex parte Paul Torres
Case Number: 11-21-00001-CR
Judge: PER CURIAM
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
Court: Eleventh Court of Appeals
Plaintiff's Attorney: Philip Mack Furlow, District Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Eastland, TX - Paul Torres has filed a pro se notice of appeal that relates to an application for writ of habeas corpus that was filed in the trial court and sent to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
The documents on file in this cause indicate that Torres’s appeal relates to an
application for writ of habeas corpus that was filed pursuant to Article 11.07 of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07
(West 2015). We note that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in its cause
no. WR-81,117-06, dismissed Torres’s application on December 9, 2020, without a
written order. Torres complains of the failures on the part of the trial court and the
2
Court of Criminal Appeals to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law with
respect to his writ.
The substance of the relief sought by Torres in this appeal is postconviction
relief from a final felony conviction—relief for which the habeas corpus procedure
set out in Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive
remedy. See id. Article 11.07 vests complete jurisdiction for such relief in the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. art. 11.07, §§ 3, 5; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel.
Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App.
1995); Hoang v. State, 872 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Ater v. Eighth
Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). This court lacks
jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the denial or dismissal of an Article 11.07
application.
Outcome: Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: