COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
No. 08-26-00267-CR
Ex Parte David Quinonez
AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN HABEAS CORPUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Quinonez, who is self-represented, has filed multiple, handwritten documents, to
include a motion for new trial, a motion in limine, a motion “in other,” jury instructions, and
inmate grievance forms. We consider these documents together and construe them as a petition for
extraordinary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. We dismiss the petition.
The documents provide inadequate information to begin to address the legal merits. First,
Quinonez does not name a Respondent, and it is unclear from whom he is seeking relief. Second, it is difficult to discern the precise nature of his complaint or complaints. Consequently, it is unclear
what remedy or relief he seeks.
For example, within his various documents, Quinonez repeatedly mentions an 11.07
application for writ of habeas corpus that was denied by the Court of Criminal Appeals without
written order, on January 8, 2014. 1 He complains that the trial court erred during his original trial
by overruling his writ.
Article 11.07 provides the exclusive remedy for post-conviction relief from a felony
conviction imposing a penalty other than death, and it vests exclusive jurisdiction over such relief
in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, § 1. “Article 11.07
contains no role for the courts of appeals.” In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). Thus, to the extent that Quinonez seeks any postconviction relief under an 11.07 application for writ of habeas corpus, we have no jurisdiction to
grant him any relief. Id.
Moreover, “we do not have authority to review the Court of Criminal Appeals’ rulings.”
Poledore v. State, Nos. 01-14-01001-CR, 01-14-01002-CR, 01-14-01003-CR, 2015 WL 967611,
at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] March 3, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (per curiam) (citing Tex. Const. art. V, § 5(a)). Thus, to the extent that Quinonez’s
documents seek to challenge the Court of Criminal Appeals’ denial of his 11.07 application for
habeas corpus, we lack jurisdiction to review that ruling.
1
Quinonez refers to Cause No. 20110D02123, which appears to be the cause number for his underlying felony conviction in the 171st Judicial District Court of El Paso County. Quinonez did not file a direct appeal from his conviction, but he did file a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, which was docketed by the Court of Criminal Appeals as Cause No. WR-80,688-01 and was denied without written order. See Tex. Judicial Branch, https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=WR-80,688-01&coa=coscca.
2
Finally, Quinonez’s documents also include inmate grievance forms issued by the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. This Court does not have supervisory jurisdiction over the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. By statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus
against “a judge of a district [or] county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as
necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. The Texas
Department of Criminal Justice is not a party against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus.
Nor has Quinonez demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce our
jurisdiction. To the extent that Quinonez seeks mandamus relief against the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, we have no jurisdiction to grant him any relief.
For the above reasons, we dismiss Quinonez’s petition for want of jurisdiction, and we
dismiss any pending motions as moot.
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice
July 16 2026
Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
3