In re Ayers
Tex. App.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026In Re Quentin Smith v. the State of Texas
- 2026In Re Bryant L Woods v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
- 2026In Re Kenneth Dewanye Baze v. the State of Texas Tex. App.-Waco
- 2025In Re Roger Lee Hall v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2025In Re Avery Cato v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2024In Re Andrew Burke v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2024In Re Jose Mendez v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2024William L. Arnett v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2024In Re: Sebra Proutt v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2024In Re Andrew Brown v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
Cites 3 cases
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
IN RE Avery Lamarr AYERS, Relator
Judges
- Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and McCally.
Attorneys
- Avery Lamarr Ayers, Beaumont, TX, Relator pro se.
On April 5, 2016, relator Avery Lamarr Ayers filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex.R.App. P. 52. In the petition, relator, who was convicted for forgery of a financial instrument, claims he is innocent and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Relator is requesting habeas corpus relief. The courts of appeals have no original habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(d); Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Ex Parte Denby, 627 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, orig. proceeding). Original jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or a judge in those courts. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.05 (West 2015); Ex Parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding). Therefore, this court is without jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition requesting habeas corpus relief.
Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.