                            NUMBER 13-12-00502-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

CHARLES RUTH III,                                                            Appellant,

                                            v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 107th District Court
                  of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

      Appellant, Charles Ruth III, attempts to appeal the trial court=s “Order Pursuant to

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Article 11.07§ 3.” The order signed July 5, 2012, directs trial

counsel to file affidavits responsive to the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

raised in appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus signed on July 5, 2012.
       On August 6, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that

the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order, and requested

correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has

failed to respond to the Court=s directive.

       Even if appellant were seeking to challenge an order denying a post-conviction writ

of habeas corpus, jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief in felony

cases rests exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (Vernon Supp. 2011); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene

v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re

McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig.

proceeding).

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the

opinion there is not an appealable order and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters

herein. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).

                                                        PER CURIAM

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed the 11th
day of October, 2012.




                                              2
