We have a situtation here where a defendant is claiming that his prior misdemeanor DWI convictions from several decades ago are invalid and as such his felony DWI charge should not be a felony.

The district judge believes that he is the one that should hear and determine the writs challenging the prior convictions. I was under the impression that the defendant has to follow the procedure in 11.072 to validly challenge these convictions and that requires the writ to be filed in the convicting court. Can the district judge determine these writs or must the defendant follow 11.072 and seek relief in the county court that convicted him frist?

I presume the issue is coming before the district court in the form of a motion to quash part of the indictment or as an objection to the admissibility of the proof of the prior conviction. In that context, I believe the District Court can determine the validity of the prior conviction, as evidenced e.g., in Armitage v. State, 637 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) and Kennedy v. State, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4407 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd), with these rules in mind:

The State establishes a prime facia case of proof of a prior conviction by introducing copies of the judgment and sentence in each case used for enhancement and connecting them with the defendant. Johnson v. State, 725 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Once the State makes that prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to an affirmative showing of any defect in the judgment. Smith v. State, 683 S.W.2d 393, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Where procedural requirements do not affirmatively appear in the record to have been violated, the presumption of regularity must prevail. Jones v. State, 646 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Ex parte Pardun, 744 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd). Thus, in his collateral attack on his prior conviction, appellant had the burden to affirmatively show that the judgment was void. Hankins v. State, 646 S.W.2d 191, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Randall v. State, 735 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1987, no pet.).

This effectively means the judgment must be shown to be void on its face. Otherwise, the conviction must be set aside by the court that rendered it, under either 11.072 or 11.09 as applicable, with this exception: you can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of a district court to attack a misdemeanor conviction. Ex parte Crosley, 548 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).

The issue is before the court via a writ of habeas corpus. He is challenging the actual validity of the convictions and seeks to have them set aside.

I know I'm getting in over my head here, but Ex parte Crosley and a couple of other CCA cases cite to Article V, Section 8 as the basis for a district court having jurisdiction over a post conviction writ challenging a misdemeanor conviction. That section gives district courts jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, "except in cases where exclusive, appellate, or iriginal jurisdiction may be conferred by this Constitution or other law on some other court..." 11.072 mandates that an application seeking relief from an "order or a judgment of conviction ordering community supervision" must be filed "with the clerk of the court in which the community supervision was imposed."

If it is mandatory that an application be filed in the convicting court under that section, and if the convicting court was a county court, wouldn't that deprive the district court of jusidiction under Article V, section 8? All the cases that I see seem to be before the 2003 effective date of 11.072.

Any additional thoughts appreciated.

Yes, misdemeanor conviction should be litigated in the court of original conviction.