                              NO. 07-12-00239-CR
                                       
                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                       
                       FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                       
                                  AT AMARILLO
                                       
                                    PANEL B
                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE 22, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       
                          EX PARTE JOE LEE TOUCHSTONE
                          ___________________________
                                       
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.


                                     ORDER
                                       
	Joe Lee Touchstone, a prison inmate appearing pro se, has filed a pleading in this court asserting he has been unlawfully incarcerated by the State of Texas since February 13, 1991, because his underlying conviction and sentence are void.  He asks that we initiate proceedings leading to a declaration that the underlying conviction is "null and void."  In an opinion dated October 14, 1991, we affirmed Touchstone's conviction for aggravated sexual assault in cause number 07-91-0054-CR.  No petition for discretionary review was filed and mandate issued on December 12, 1991. 
As an intermediate appellate court, we have no post-conviction jurisdiction to consider the relief Touchstone requests by his pleading because the exclusive means of challenging a final felony conviction is in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals according to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2011); Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (stating only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over post-conviction felony proceedings).
Accordingly, we dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction
It is so ordered.

								James T. Campbell
									Justice

Do not publish.

