Opinion
No. 04-16-00037-CR
02-03-2016
EX PARTE Angelo GAONA
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CR7532, styled The State of Texas v. Angelo Gaona, pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore presiding. --------
On January 21, 2016, relator Angelo Gaona filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the charges pending against him in the underlying criminal case. Relator is currently incarcerated on a charge of felony possession of a firearm, and is awaiting trial. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 46.02-.12 (West 2011 & Supp. 2015).
This court, as an intermediate court of appeals, is not authorized to grant the relief relator seeks. Pursuant to section 22.221(d) of the Texas Government Code, in civil matters, a court of appeals "may issue a writ of habeas corpus when it appears that the restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a court or judge because of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a civil case." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). In criminal matters, however, an intermediate court of appeals has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction. Chavez v. State, 132 S.W.3d 509, 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref'd); Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.). The courts authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus in criminal cases are the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, and county courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05 (West 2015). Therefore, relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In addition, we note that relator has been appointed counsel to represent him in connection with the charges pending against him. We conclude that any original proceeding on relator's behalf should be presented by relator's appointed counsel. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator's pro se petition presents nothing for this court's review. See id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding).
PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH