Summary
rejecting appellant's argument that it had appellate jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceeding filed as a civil case and holding that it had no appellate jurisdiction because record did not show trial court considered the merits of the application before denying it
Summary of this case from Ex parte BlunstonOpinion
No. 05-10-00688-CR
Opinion issued July 28, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 002-81238-06.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG-MIERS, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard John Florance, Jr. was charged by information with failure to release a fraudulent lien or claim, a class A misdemeanor. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.49 (Vernon 2003). Following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty and the trial court assessed punishment at six months in the county jail and a $2000 fine. The judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal. See Florance v. State, No. 05-08-00984-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas Aug. 28, 2009 pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 3294 (2010). Appellant thereafter filed an application for writ of habeas corpus collaterally attacking his conviction. The trial judge denied the application. We directed the parties to address our jurisdiction over the appeal. See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant responded that we have jurisdiction because the habeas proceeding is a civil matter and civil jurisdiction is inherent. The State responds that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial judge did not rule on the merits of appellant's application. The crucial question in determining our jurisdiction is not whether the trial court issued a writ, but whether the trial court considered and resolved the merits of the application. See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 869; Ex parte Pool, 71 S.W.3d 462, 465 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2002, no pet.). If the trial judge reached the merits of the complaint, the ruling is appealable, even if the court's order simply denied the writ. See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 869. On the other hand, even if the judge's decision not to issue the writ is based, at least in part, on a determination that the claims lacked merit, that alone does not entitle an appellant to appeal. See Ex parte Pool, 71 S.W.3d at 465; Ex parte Miller, 931 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996, no pet.) (per curiam). In this case, no hearing was conducted on appellant's application for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court wrote on the last page of the application, "application for writ of habeas corpus denied May 21, 2010." Although appellant declares, in his letter brief, that the trial judge reached the merits of his application for writ of habeas corpus, there is nothing in the record that indicates the trial court held a hearing on or ever considered the merits of the application before denying it. We conclude the trial judge did not rule on the merits of appellant's application for writ of habeas corpus, which leaves us without jurisdiction over the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.