Charles William Deforest v. the State of Texas

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00099-CR

CHARLES WILLIAM DEFOREST,
Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

From the 12th District Court
Madison County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17-12838

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Charles William Deforest, acting pro se, attempts to appeal from a

judgment rendered against him on February 28, 2019. We dismiss for want of

jurisdiction.

Appellant was convicted of engaging in organized criminal activity, enhanced by

two prior convictions. He appealed the conviction, and this Court affirmed. See Deforest

v. State, 10-19-00111-CR, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 5397 (Tex. App.—Waco July 7, 2021, pet

ref'd). On April 3, 2024, Appellant filed a new notice of appeal in this Court contending
that his sentence is void because relevant law precludes the use of his prior driving while

intoxicated conviction to enhance his sentence. He also asserts he was denied due process

because the record does not show his prior convictions were final. He requests this Court

grant his immediate release.

Appellant's attempt to appeal from a final felony conviction falls within the scope

of a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07. Article 11.07 provides

the exclusive means to challenge his conviction for engaging in organized criminal

activity. See id.; Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2013) (per curiam). An intermediate court of appeals has no jurisdiction over

post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. Padieu, 392 S.W.3d at 117.

Because we have no jurisdiction over what is in effect a post-conviction habeas

corpus proceeding, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.1

STEVE SMITH
Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed April 18, 2024
Do not publish
[CRPM]

1All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Deforest v. State Page 2