In Re Brshai Kevin Peters v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued March 24, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00225-CR
———————————
IN RE BRSHAI KEVIN PETERS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brshai Kevin Peters, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition

for writ of mandamus asking this Court to direct the trial court to set aside his August

20, 2012 guilty plea and conviction for the felony offense of aggravated robbery

with a deadly weapon.1 We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

1
The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Brshai Kevin Peters, cause number
130552601010, in the 179th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable
Randy Roll presiding.
Peters’s petition, although couched as seeking mandamus relief, is a collateral

attack on his final felony conviction and, therefore, falls within the scope of a post-

conviction writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure.2 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. Article 11.07 provides the

exclusive means to challenge Peters’s final felony conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 11.07; Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115,

117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). “[W]hile the courts of appeals have mandamus

jurisdiction in criminal matters, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has

jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d

715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Our mandamus

jurisdiction thus cannot be used to grant post-conviction habeas relief challenging a

final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (holding that court of appeals’ granting

writ of mandamus to vacate judgment of conviction on basis of allegedly invalid

guilty plea usurped exclusive authority of Court of Criminal Appeals to grant

postconviction relief).

2
Article 11.07 pertains to an application for a writ of habeas corpus “in which the
applicant seeks relief from a felony judgment imposing a penalty other than
death.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 1. “After final conviction in any felony
case, the writ must be made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas at
Austin, Texas.” Id. § 3(a).
2
Accordingly, because Peters seeks to collaterally attack his final felony

conviction and because such collateral attacks are not cognizable in this original

proceeding, we dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

See In re Autrey, No. 05-23-00254-CV, 2023 WL 2806256, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Apr. 6, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(“When a relator files a petition for writ of mandamus requesting only habeas relief

that should be brought in an article 11.07 habeas application, the proper course is to

dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.”).

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Gunn, Caughey, and Morgan.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

3