Ex Parte Arturo Solis

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 14, 1999
Docket04-99-00364-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Ex Parte Arturo Solis (Ex Parte Arturo Solis) 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.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Arturo Solis, (Tex. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

99-00360 - 00365 Ex parte Solis.wpd
Nos. 04-99-00360-CR; 04-99-00361-CR & 04-99-00362-CR


EX PARTE Arturo SOLIS


From County Court at Law No. 1, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 359466/2361-W; 387220/2360-W & 388056/2362-W
Honorable Anthony J. Ferro, Judge Presiding


Nos. 04-99-00363-CR & 04-99-00364-CR


EX PARTE Arturo SOLIS


From County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 305656/2359-W & 313955/2358-W
Honorable Robert Lozano, Judge Presiding


No. 04-99-00365-CR


EX PARTE Arturo SOLIS


From County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 395748/2357-W
Honorable Michael Peden, Judge Presiding


PER CURIAM



Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. López, Justice



Delivered and Filed: July 14, 1999



DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

In each of these appeals, appellant seeks to appeal the denial of an application for writ of habeas corpus filed in the trial court. Appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review a denial of an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Jordan, 659 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) They can only review a ruling on the merits of the claim. Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 868.

Because the records for these appeals did not contain an order of the trial court or otherwise reflect that the trial court held a hearing on the merits of the application, we ordered appellant to show cause why these appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In response to our order, appellant filed a pro se motion requesting an extension of time to file his response to enable him to review the appellate records. We have reviewed the records for each of these appeals. No order is contained in the records that will assist appellant in responding to our show cause order. Appellant's motions for extension of time are DENIED. These appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ex Parte Jordan
659 S.W.2d 827 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Ex Parte Hargett
819 S.W.2d 866 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ex Parte Arturo Solis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-arturo-solis-texapp-1999.