Opinion
No. 04-16-00075-CR
02-24-2016
EX PARTE Anthony L. SMITH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, 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. 2013CR10000, styled The State of Texas v. Anthony L. Smith, pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore presiding. --------
On February 16, 2016, relator Anthony L. Smith filed two pro se petitions for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the charge currently pending against him in the underlying criminal case, as well as his release and discharge from further confinement. Relator was arrested in August 2013 and charged with murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (West 2011). Relator is currently incarcerated and awaiting trial on this pending charge. As of the date of this opinion, trial in the underlying matter is set to begin on March 4, 2016.
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 petitions for writ of habeas corpus are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In addition, we note that relator has been appointed trial counsel to represent him in connection with the charge currently 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 petitions present 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).
With his original petitions, relator also filed a motion for leave to file his petitions. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator's motion for leave to file is denied as moot.
PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH