Tevin Tyrell Garrett v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-22-00301-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TEVIN TYRELL GARRETT, § APPEAL FROM THE 123RD
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Tevin Tyrell Garrett, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal “from the denial of the State
Petition on the date of November 11, 2022 which was denied by the Court of Criminal
Appeals[.]” In October 2019, Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus with the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. On November 6, 2019, the Court of Criminal Appeals
remanded the case to the trial court for evidentiary findings. See Ex parte Garrett, WR-90,476-
01, WR-90,476-02, WR-90,476-03, 2019 WL 5783490, at *1-2 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 6, 2019,
per curiam order). On February 26, 2020, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied habeas relief
without a written order. See Ex parte Garrett, WR-90,476-01, WR-90,476-02, WR-90,476-03,
(Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2020). Appellant filed another habeas application on October 3, 2022,
which the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed. See Ex parte Garrett, WR-90,476-04 (Tex.
Crim. App. Nov. 2, 2022). It is not entirely clear whether this dismissal is the subject of
Appellant’s notice of appeal.
On November 21, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the notice of
appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely, the order being appealed is not an
appealable order. We further notified Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the
information was amended on or before December 21 to show the jurisdiction of the Court. In
response, Appellant asserts a claim of legal innocence, claims that his plea was involuntary, and
contends the judgment of conviction is void.
To the extent Appellant attempts to challenge a decision of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, we do not have jurisdiction over the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Lambert v. State,
No. 03–12–00530–CR, 2012 WL 3629486 (Tex. App.–Austin Aug. 23, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.45 (West 2018).
And to the extent he attempts to challenge his conviction and sentence for burglary of a
habitation, the appropriate method for collaterally attacking a final felony conviction is by a
petition for writ of habeas corpus. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2022).
This Court has no jurisdiction over complaints that may be raised only by postconviction habeas
corpus proceedings brought under Article 11.07. See id. arts. 11.05, 11.07 (West 2005 & Supp.
2022). Only the court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction in postconviction challenges to final
felony convictions. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (in granting writ of mandamus to vacate conviction appellate court
found void, court of appeals usurped exclusive authority of court of criminal appeals to grant
postconviction relief); see also Noble v. State, No. 05-17-01409-CR, 2017 WL 6547083, at *2
(Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 22, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (to
extent appellant sought to challenge purportedly void judgment by filing post-conviction habeas
application, appellate court had no jurisdiction over such proceedings).
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Opinion delivered January 25, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

2
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 25, 2023

NO. 12-22-00301-CR

TEVIN TYRELL GARRETT,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 123rd District Court
of Shelby County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 17CR20221B)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and
that the appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.