Opinion
04-23-00992-CR
02-08-2024
EX PARTE Luis Miguel BERNAL MORALES
From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 11134CR Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Irene Rios, Justice
Appellant, Luis Miguel Bernal Morales, filed two pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus, one on September 22, 2022, and one on September 28, 2022. On October 6, 2023, the trial court denied Bernal Morales's "Application for Pretrial Writ of Habeas Corpus," without specifying whether the court was denying the first application, the second application, or both. We therefore abated the appeal and directed the trial court to clarify its order.
On January 18, 2024, the trial court clerk filed a supplemental clerk's record containing the trial court's clarification, in which the trial court states that (1) the court intended to deny the September 22, 2022 habeas application as not being cognizable, (2) the court intended to deny Bernal Morales a hearing on the habeas application filed on September 28, 2022, and (3) the court now intends to hold a hearing on the September 28, 2022 application.
In his appeal, Bernal Morales challenges only the trial court's denial of his September 28, 2022 habeas application. But there is no right to an appeal when a trial court refuses to issue a habeas writ or dismisses or denies a habeas application without ruling on the merits of the applicant's claims. See Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394, 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Purchase v. State, 176 S.W.3d 406, 407 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Therefore, because the trial court clarified that it has not yet ruled on the merits of the September 28, 2022 habeas application, it appears that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the court's docket and ORDER Bernal Morales to file a response to this order no later than February 20, 2024, showing how this court has jurisdiction over this appeal. If Bernal Morales fails to file a response showing that we have jurisdiction over this appeal, we will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Purchase, 176 S.W.3d at 407; Ex parte Bowers, 36 S.W.3d 926, 927 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, pet. ref'd).