Charles Ruth Iii v. State
This text of Charles Ruth Iii v. State (Charles Ruth Iii v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-12-00502-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________
CHARLES RUTH III, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Charles Ruth III, attempts to appeal the trial court=s “Order Pursuant to
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Article 11.07§ 3.” The order signed July 5, 2012, directs trial
counsel to file affidavits responsive to the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
raised in appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus signed on July 5, 2012. On August 6, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that
the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order, and requested
correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has
failed to respond to the Court=s directive.
Even if appellant were seeking to challenge an order denying a post-conviction writ
of habeas corpus, jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief in felony
cases rests exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (Vernon Supp. 2011); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene
v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re
McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig.
proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the
opinion there is not an appealable order and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters
herein. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 11th day of October, 2012.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Charles Ruth Iii v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-ruth-iii-v-state-texapp-2012.