Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
T. Campbell Justice
Anthony Nottingham, appearing pro se, has filed this original
proceeding challenging actions he ascribes to the Honorable
John B. Board, Judge of the 181st District Court of Randall
County. By his petition, Nottingham seeks relief from the
revocation of his parole. Because such relief must be pursued
through a habeas corpus proceeding under Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure Article 11.07,  and because the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals possesses exclusive jurisdiction over an
Article 11.07 proceeding, we will dismiss the present
proceeding for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
Nottingham was convicted of robbery in 2008 in Judge
Board's court. We affirmed that conviction. Thereafter, he
was convicted in Wheeler County in 2011 for the 2007 offense
of attempting to take a weapon from an officer and was
sentenced to eighteen-years' confinement. He was released
from confinement on parole in October 2013. During July 2016,
through two Potter County indictments, Nottingham was charged
with the June 2016 offenses of robbery and harassment of a
public servant. On November 16, 2016, Randall County charged
Nottingham with two counts of robbery based on the same June
2016 events that lead to the Potter County
indictments. On December 2, 2016, the two Potter County
cases against Nottingham were dismissed without prejudice.
The Randall County case against him was dismissed on May 17,
2017. Nottingham's parole was revoked on July 5, 2017.
ultimate object of Nottingham's complaint in this
original proceeding is the assertedly wrongful revocation of
his parole, for which he, in part, blames Judge Board. He
faults Judge Board for a failure to declare, sua sponte, the
Randall County indictment void for want of jurisdiction. He
appears to maintain that Randall County was precluded from
indicting him because Potter County first acquired
jurisdiction through its later-dismissed indictments. He
alleges also the procedure that led to revocation of his
parole was infected by prosecutorial misconduct and collusion
in Randall County with the parole office and the Randall
County Sheriff's Department.
has accompanied his original proceeding with a voluminous
record. It shows he presented his complaint to Judge Board,
as judge of the convicting court, during a 2018 habeas corpus
proceeding brought under Code of Criminal Procedure Article
11.07. In its March 27, 2019 order in that habeas proceeding
the Court of Criminal Appeals noted Nottingham asserted
"he was denied pre-sentence credit and credit for time
in custody prior to the revocation of his parole" as
well as "multiple grounds relating to the revocation of
his parole." Ex parte Nottingham, No. WR-29,
898-04, 2019 Tex.Crim.App. Unpub. LEXIS 163, at *1 (Tex.
Crim. App. Mar. 27, 2019) (per curiam order, not designated
for publication). The court dismissed Nottingham's claims
relating to pre-sentence credit and denied his remaining
is a form of restraint which allows an applicant to pursue
the remedies afforded under Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 11.07." 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) (per curiam);
Ephraim v. Thaler, No. 2:08-CV-0214, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 104409, at *5 (N.D. Tex., Amarillo Div. Aug. 17, 2011),
(citing Keene), report and recommendation
adopted, Ephraim v. Thaler, No. 2:08-CV-0214, 2011 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 104408 (N.D. Tex., Amarillo Div. Sep. 15, 2011).
A claim that parole was unlawfully revoked must be brought to
the convicting court's attention under Article 11.07.
Keene, 910 S.W.2d at 483. The Court of Criminal
Appeals possesses exclusive jurisdiction to grant habeas
relief under Article 11.07. Id. at 484. See Ex
parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)
(citing Keene and stating "claims regarding
parole revocation hearings are cognizable under Article
11.07"); Ex parte Touchstone, No.
07-12-00239-CR, 2012 Tex.App. LEXIS 5021, at *1-2 (Tex.
App.-Amarillo June 22, 2012, orig. proceeding) (order, not
designated for publication) (dismissing for want of
jurisdiction an inmate's request for a declaration that
his underlying conviction was "null and void" and
concluding "[a]s an intermediate appellate court, we
have no post-conviction jurisdiction to consider the relief
[relator] 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").
on the record presented by Nottingham, it is clear to us that
he pursued his wrongful-revocation-of-parole claim to an
unsuccessful end in the habeas proceeding before the Court of
Criminal Appeals, and now has recast it as a petition for
writ of mandamus against Judge Board in this proceeding. But
as noted, exclusive jurisdiction over this type of complaint
lies with the Court of Criminal Appeals. We therefore dismiss
Nottingham's original proceeding for want of subject
 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 11.07
 Nottingham v. State, No.
07-08-00131-CR, 2009 Tex.App. LEXIS 649 (Tex. App.-Amarillo
Jan. 30, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
 The two counts in the Randall County
indictment alleged Nottingham committed robbery within four
hundred yards of the boundary of Potter and Randall Counties.
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 13.04 (West
2015) (offenses committed within four hundred yards of ...