in Re Brian Damon Ward
10-15-00287-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 10, 2015Background
- Brian Damon Ward filed a pro se petition labeled as a writ of mandamus but effectively sought post-conviction relief challenging the cocaine weight and his sentence.
- Ward alleged fraud or tampering with the cocaine weight and argued his sentence was excessive due to the allegedly fraudulent weight.
- Ward was previously convicted (affirmed on appeal in 2008) for possession with intent to deliver cocaine, enhanced, and sentenced to 19 years.
- The petition lacked required procedural elements (proof of service, appendix/record, Rule 52.3(j) certification), though the court temporarily suspended those requirements under Rule 2 to expedite consideration.
- The court treated the filing as a post-conviction habeas claim in a felony case and considered whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an intermediate court of appeals has jurisdiction over post-conviction habeas relief in a final felony case | Ward sought relief (vacatur of cocaine weight and sentence) via petition to this court | The court (and precedent) asserts such post-conviction habeas relief in felony cases must proceed under Art. 11.07 and through the convicting court/Court of Criminal Appeals | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; intermediate court lacks authority over post-conviction habeas in felony cases |
| Whether procedural defects in Ward’s petition warrant dismissal or other relief | Ward filed pro se and did not include proof of service, appendix/record, or required certification | Court noted defects but invoked Rule 2 to suspend procedural requirements to expedite consideration of jurisdictional issue | Court suspended procedural requirements for purposes of ruling on jurisdiction but dismissed on jurisdictional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Martinez, 175 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005) (intermediate courts lack jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas in felony cases)
- Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003) (same)
- Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (exclusive post-conviction remedy for final felony convictions is Art. 11.07 habeas corpus)
- Ex parte Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006) (articulating exclusive Art. 11.07 post-conviction procedure)
- Ex parte Hearon, 3 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999) (intermediate courts do not have original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters)