In Re Elton MacK Maxie Jr. v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00133-CR
__________________

IN RE ELTON MACK MAXIE JR.

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
356th District Court of Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 20557
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 30, 2026, this Court received Elton Mack Maxie Jr.’s (hereinafter

Maxie) pro se Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Petition). 1 In his Petition,

Maxie states that he is currently an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice. Maxie complains that the trial court failed to orally pronounce his sentence.

1
Maxie failed to identify the State as the Real Party in Interest and further
failed to certify that he mailed a copy of the mandamus petition and record to the
Real Party in Interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(a); 52.7(c). Additionally, Maxie failed
to provide certified or sworn copies of the documents and failed to certify that every
factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the
appendix or record. See id. 52.3(j), 52.7(a)(1). We use Rule 2, however, to look
beyond this and other deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See id. 2.
1
Maxie was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison in trial cause

number 20557, in the 356th District Court in Hardin County, Texas. Maxie’s court

appointed attorney filed an appeal for his conviction and that appeal was docketed

in this court as Maxie v. State, No. 09-24-00308-CR. We issued a memorandum

opinion affirming his conviction. Maxie v. State, No. 09-24-00308-CR, 2025 Tex.

App. LEXIS 4218, **1-2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 18, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication).

In our opinion, we explained that a grand jury had indicted Maxie for murder,

a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02. In the trial court, Maxie

initially pleaded “not guilty,” but later he changed his plea to “guilty” during trial

prior to the State resting its case. The trial court accepted Maxie’s “guilty” plea and

found him guilty of the offense as charged in the indictment. After hearing evidence

on punishment, the jury returned a verdict of guilty rejecting Maxie’s special issue

of sudden passion, and the jury assessed punishment at life in prison. The judgment

reflects that the trial court sentenced Maxie in accordance with the jury’s verdict to

life in prison. In his appeal, Maxie’s court-ordered attorney filed a brief stating that

he had reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, there were no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). We granted an extension of time for Maxie to file a pro se brief, and Maxie

2
filed a pro se response arguing the trial court failed to orally pronounce his sentence

in his presence. After reviewing the entire record, Maxie’s attorney’s brief, and

Maxie’s pro se brief, we found nothing that would arguably support an appeal, and

we affirmed the trial court’s judgment. We also told Maxie in footnote one of our

memorandum opinion that he could challenge our decision in the appeal by filing a

petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex.

R. App. P. 68; Maxie, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4218, at **1-2. Our mandate for the

appeal was issued on August 12, 2025.

In his Petition, Maxie complains that the trial court failed to orally pronounce

his sentence in trial court cause number 20557. However, we affirmed Maxie’s

conviction on appeal and his conviction has been final for almost a year, and cause

number 20557 is not currently pending in the trial court. Maxie’s Petition is not

related to a case that is currently pending in the trial court, and Maxie has not shown

that he is entitled to mandamus relief.

Moreover, Maxie’s Petition is essentially a collateral attack on his

conviction. We do not have authority to issue a writ of mandamus regarding

complaints that may only be raised by a post-conviction habeas corpus

proceeding. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991) (orig. proceeding); see also In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Article 11.07 is the exclusive

3
procedure available to an applicant seeking relief from a felony judgment imposing

a penalty other than death. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 §§ 1, 5.

Additionally, “[a] trial court has no ‘general’ jurisdiction after a conviction becomes

final.” In re Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 710 S.W.3d 731, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025)

(orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on May 5, 2026
Opinion Delivered May 6, 2026
Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

4