Opinion
No. 2-05-100-CR
Delivered: November 3, 2005.
Appeal from County Court of Jack County.
Panel B: CAYCE, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and WALKER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
Appellant Vanessa Kaye Lamar filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus alleging a violation of her right to a speedy trial, and the trial court denied relief. In two issues, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by denying relief because the court's failure to provide her a speedy trial violated the Sixth Amendment and article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution. We affirm.
In November 2003, appellant pleaded no contest to a class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana charge and received one year of deferred adjudication probation. In January 2004, appellant was arrested on a second charge of marijuana possession, and the State filed a motion to proceed to adjudication on the first offense on February 2, 2004.
Appellant then filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, and the trial court denied relief after taking notice of appellant's evidence. Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied her relief because she has not been afforded her constitutional right to a speedy trial.
See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
An applicant may not use a pretrial writ of habeas corpus to assert her constitutional right to a speedy trial. A direct appeal is adequate to address claims regarding the issue of the right to a speedy trial. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying appellant habeas relief.
Ex parte Weiss, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Ex parte Delbert, 582 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979).
Smith v. State, 36 S.W.3d 134, 136 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd); Courson v. State, 996 S.W.2d 348, 350 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. dism'd).
Therefore, we overrule appellant's issues and affirm the trial court's judgment.