                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________
                               NO. 09-14-00012-CR
                            ____________________


                           IN RE JOHN D. FAILS JR.

_______________________________________________________             ______________

                                Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________             _____________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a petition for writ of mandamus, John D. Fails complains that he filed an

application for writ of habeas corpus with the convicting court on October 7, 2013,

but he has not received a copy of the State’s response to his application. Fails

states that he filed a motion to vacate his sentence on December 12, 2013. He

argues that he is entitled to have his sentence vacated and to have the indictment

dismissed with prejudice as a remedy for a due process violation because the State

failed to send him a copy of its response and the district clerk failed to forward his

habeas petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals. He asks this Court to vacate his

sentence and dismiss the indictment.

                                          1
      The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to grant post-

conviction relief. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.3d 241, 243 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991). After a post-conviction habeas proceeding commences, the

defendant’s complaints about the convicting court’s handling of the habeas petition

must be presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Padieu v. Court of

Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig.

proceeding); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.

2001, orig. proceeding) (“Should an applicant find it necessary to complain about

an action or inaction of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus

relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.”). Fails has not shown that the trial

court failed to act on a matter over which we have jurisdiction. See Padieu, 392

S.W.3d at 117-18. We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.

      PETITION DISMISSED.


                                                  PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered February 12, 2014
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.




                                        2
