Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
OPINION ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
C. Parker, Justice.
the Court is a petition for writ of mandamus filed pro se by
relator Kerrance Ramone Brown, an inmate in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. In his petition, relator
challenges the validity of his sentence, requests the
withdrawal of his guilty plea, and seeks a new trial. We deny
was charged in a two-count indictment for the felony offenses
of possession of a controlled substance with intent to
deliver and unlawful possession of a firearm by a
felon,  enhanced by two prior felony convictions.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, relator pleaded guilty to both
counts and entered pleas of "true" to both
enhancement allegations. In March of 2016, the trial court
sentenced him to thirty years' confinement for each
offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. Relator
filed two Article 11.07 applications for writ of habeas
corpus,  which were denied by the Court of Criminal
Appeals without written order. In July of 2019, relator filed
an untimely notice of appeal, which this Court dismissed for
want of jurisdiction and on the basis of the trial
court's certification showing that relator has no right
of appeal. Brown v. State, No. 07-19-00266-CR, 2019
Tex.App. LEXIS 7185, at *2 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Aug. 14, 2019,
no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for
proceeding, relator contends in his first issue that his
sentence is void because the trial court did not assess a
fine, which relator asserts is required under section
481.112(f) of the Texas Health & Safety Code. The statute
provides, "An offense under Subsection (a) is punishable
by imprisonment . . . and a fine not to exceed $250,
000, if the amount of the controlled substance to which the
offense applies is, by aggregate weight, including
adulterants or dilutants, 400 grams or more." Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(f) (emphasis
added). Texas caselaw supports the contention that section
481.112(f) mandates both confinement and the imposition of a
fine. See, e.g., Ibarra v. State, 177 S.W.3d 282,
284 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.).
claims that, because his sentence did not include a fine, it
is "illegal, void, and unauthorized by law," and he
is entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is an
extraordinary remedy. In re Southwestern Bell Tel.
Co., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding);
In re Braswell, 310 S.W.3d 165, 166 (Tex.
App.-Amarillo 2010, orig. proceeding). "Mandamus issues
only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation
of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate
remedy by law." Johnson v. Fourth Court of
Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig.
a defendant challenges an illegal sentence by direct appeal
or by a writ of habeas corpus, not by seeking mandamus
relief. See Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804, 806
(Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see also In re Gutierrez,
No. 07-00-00482-CV, 2000 Tex.App. LEXIS 8429, at *5-6 (Tex.
App.-Amarillo 2000, orig. proceeding) ("If a defendant
is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article
11.07, then a court of appeals abuses its discretion if it
rules favorably on a petition for mandamus to correct a void
conviction, because of the existence of an adequate legal
case, relator has previously challenged the legality of his
sentence by a writ of habeas corpus. According to
relator's petition, his second application for writ of
habeas corpus raised the issue that his sentence was void due
to the trial court's failure to assess a
fine. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied
relator's application. Therefore, it appears that relator
obtained a decision on this issue from our state's court
of last resort for criminal cases. This Court lacks authority
to overrule or circumvent Court of Criminal Appeals
precedent. State ex rel. Wilson v. Briggs, 351
S.W.2d 892, 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961) ("The Court of
Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort in this state in
criminal matters. This being so, no other court of this state
has authority to overrule or circumvent its decisions or
disobey its mandates.").
we observe that relator's petition for mandamus does not
establish that the trial court imposed an unlawful sentence,
thereby abusing its discretion or violating a duty imposed by
law. At the time of relator's conviction, the trial court
also found that he had been finally convicted of two previous
felony offenses. Consequently, relator was not sentenced
under section 481.112(f) of the Health and Safety Code, but
under the habitual offender provision in section 12.42(d) of
the Penal Code. See Vanbelle v. State, No.
02-12-00075-CR, 2013 Tex.App. LEXIS 5701, at *13-14 (Tex.
App.-Fort Worth May 9, 2013, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). Section 12.42(d) does not
require, or even authorize, the assessment of a fine.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (West
2019); Harris v. State, 903 S.W.2d 514, 515 (Tex.
App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.) ("[T]here is no statutory
provision for a fine as a habitual offender.").
we overrule relator's first issue. Because we have
overruled relator's first issue, we need not reach his
second issue, which is premised on the invalidity of his
sentence. Tex.R.App.P. 47.1.
petition for writ of mandamus is denied.