Full Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-26-00913-CV In re Tony Ramirez ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Tony Ramirez, an inmate with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus naming as respondent “The State of Texas” and directing respondent to void his 1992 criminal conviction. We construe the petition as directed against the judge in the district court of his conviction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221 (courts of appeal have authority to issue writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district”). In the 1992 proceeding, Ramirez was convicted of attempted capital murder and sentenced to sixty years’ confinement, and he subsequently has filed multiple applications for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has denied. See Ex parte Ramirez, No. WR-24,944-14, 2021 WL 4186443, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 15, 2021) (unpublished order) (dismissing application for writ of habeas corpus and stating that court had previously dismissed five subsequent applications in that cause); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07. In this proceeding, although the petition is styled as a writ of mandamus, the relief that Ramirez seeks amounts to relief that would only be available through a writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07; In re Bradley, No. 03-12- 00483-CV, 2012 WL 3600860, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 15, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining that relator’s requested relief to have felony conviction set aside amounted to “relief that is available through a writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 . . .”). “The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas relief in felony cases.” See In re Ramirez, No. 03-26-00396-CV, 2026 WL 1250429, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin May 7, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing In re Bradley, 2012 WL 3600860, at *1). Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction and dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. __________________________________________ Karin Crump, Justice Before Justices Triana, Crump, and Ellis Filed: October 14, 2026 2