Opinion
No. 07-15-00290-CV
01-28-2016
EDDIE A. NUNNELLEY, JR., APPELLANT v. J. BEACH, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 104,482-E, Honorable Douglas Woodburn, Presiding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Eddie A. Nunnelley, Jr. (appellant) appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under article 11.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Through that petition, he sought relief from a prison disciplinary "conviction" entered against him while incarcerated within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.
Article 11.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that "[i]f a person is confined on a charge of misdemeanor, he may apply to the county judge of the county in which the misdemeanor is charged to have been committed, or if there be no county judge in said county, then to the county judge whose residence is nearest to the courthouse of the county in which the applicant is held in custody." See TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 11.09 (West 2015) (emphasis added). The record at bar fails to illustrate that Nunnelley was or is confined on a misdemeanor charge made by an entity charged with enforcing misdemeanor penal statutes.
Rather, Nunnelley complains of the consequences of a prison disciplinary proceeding. Such disciplinary proceedings are not subject to review via a writ of habeas corpus filed in a state court. Ex parte Brager, 704 S.W.2d 46, (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (concluding that the court would not entertain claims concerning alleged violations of prison disciplinary procedures via writs of habeas corpus); accord, Ex parte Mitchell, No. WR-13,548-06, 2012 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 430, at *430 (Tex. Crim. App. May 2, 2012) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (stating that "a claim regarding good time and disciplinary actions by TDCJ are not cognizable on habeas"). As stated in Ex parte Palomo, 759 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), "[t]he Department of Corrections provides procedures by which inmates may seek formal review of complaints relating to the terms and conditions of their imprisonment . . . [s]uch review procedures extend to matters involving inmate classification, disciplinary proceedings and the award of good time credit within the Department of Corrections." Id. at 674 (emphasis added). They are not reviewed via the avenue of a writ of habeas corpus filed in a state court. Id.; see Evans v. Hernandez, No. 13-10-00593-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2190, at *5-6 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that "it is well settled that if an inmate wishes to challenge a disciplinary conviction or punishment that he receives while he is incarcerated, as in this case, he must file a habeas corpus action in federal court").
We overrule both of appellant's issues and affirm the decision to deny the writ of habeas corpus.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice Do not publish.