Opinion
03-24-00394-CV
06-21-2024
Ex parte Stephaney Veljean Lafears
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROSA LOPEZ THEOFANIS, JUSTICE.
Relator Stephaney Veljean Lafears has filed an original application for writ of habeas corpus challenging the trial court's rulings granting the State's motion to amend the information and denying Lafears's motions to quash and dismiss the information. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 28.10 (setting forth procedure for amending charging instrument).
The original habeas corpus jurisdiction of a court of appeals is limited to cases where a person's liberty is restrained because he or she has violated an order, judgment, or decree in a civil case. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221(d); In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 n.3 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). Courts of appeals have no original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters. In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see Ex parte Braswell, 630 S.W.3d 600, 601-02 (Tex. App.-Waco 2021, orig. proceeding); Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.) ("The courts of appeals have no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters; their jurisdiction is appellate only."). Original jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or a judge of those courts. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.05.; see Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 356.
Lafears cites Ex parte Alvear as support for our "authority to hear this writ." See 524 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex. App.-Waco 2016, no pet.). She asserts that our sister court "took up the same issue as in this case" and concluded that "[a] claim that the state's prosecution prejudices the accused where an information shows on its face that prosecution is barred by statute of limitations is a claim that an appellant m[a]y assert by writ of habeas." However, the court of appeals in Ex parte Alvear was not considering an original habeas application but rather an "appeal from the trial court's order denying [Alvear's] application for writ of habeas corpus." Id. (emphasis added).
Although Lafears states that she also filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, it does not appear to have ruled on the application. She explains that she "filed her Motion to Quash Information, Motion To Dismiss, and Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus, etc. A hearing was held on May 17, 2024, and the trial court denied [her] Motion and granted the state's motion to amend the information." Similarly, she does not ask that we reverse the court's denial of her application but that we "reverse the trial court's ruling which granted the state's Motion to Amend" and that we "dismiss prosecution."
To the extent that Lafears seeks to appeal from the trial court's order granting the State's motion to amend the information, we are likewise without jurisdiction. We may not exercise jurisdiction over an appeal from an interlocutory order in a criminal case when jurisdiction has not been expressly granted by statute. See Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mullinax v. State, No. 01-19-00881-CR, 2021 WL 2425240, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 15, 2021, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Lafears does not identify, nor have we found, a statute authorizing an appeal from an interlocutory order granting a motion to amend a charging instrument. See also Ferrara v. State, No. 03-21-00385-CR, 2021 WL 5457204, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin Nov. 19, 2021), op. after reinstatement of appeal sub nom. Ex parte Ferrara, No. 03-21-00278-CR, 2022 WL 1547773 (Tex. App.-Austin May 17, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("[W]e lack jurisdiction over Ferrara's appeal from the denial of his motion to quash.").
Accordingly, we dismiss Lafears's original application for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction.