Ex Parte Douglas Wood

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 8, 2004
• Docket: 06-04-00001-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

6-96-028-CV Long Trusts v. Dowd

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-04-00001-CR

EX PARTE:

DOUGLAS WOOD

---

                                                                                                                                                              

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding

---

                                                                                                                                                                                        

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Opinion by Justice Ross

O P I N I O N

          Douglas Wood has filed an original habeas proceeding in which he seeks post-conviction relief pursuant to chapter eleven of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In his application, Wood contends his Texas parole officer has improperly added special sex offender requirements to the conditions of his parole, even though a court of competent jurisdiction has already determined Wood did not commit an offense for which such restrictions and requirements were appropriate. Wood asks this Court to enjoin the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles from imposing on him the special conditions of parole applicable only to convicted sex offenders.

          This Court's original and appellate jurisdiction is limited by the Texas Constitution and by statutes promulgated by the Texas Legislature. The Texas Constitution grants this Court with original jurisdiction only in cases where specifically prescribed by law. Tex. Const. art. V, § 6. As it relates to the case now before us, we are not among the list of courts authorized by the Texas Legislature to issue post-conviction writs of habeas corpus; only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, and any judge of those courts, have the power to issue writs of habeas corpus. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.05 (Vernon 1977). We also are not authorized under Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon Supp. 2004) to consider an original habeas corpus application. Our law requires that post-conviction applications for writs of habeas corpus, for felony cases in which the death penalty was not assessed, be filed in the court of original conviction, made returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(a), (b) (Vernon Supp. 2004). We are, therefore, without jurisdiction to consider Wood's post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus. See Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref'd) (dismissing two points of error within appeal of denial of motion for post-conviction DNA testing because those points of appeal amounted to request for original habeas relief, which court was without jurisdiction to grant).

          We dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

 

                                                                           Donald R. Ross

                                                                           Justice

Date Submitted:      January 7, 2004

Date Decided:         January 8, 2004

Publish

alse" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>

In The

  Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                                                ______________________________

                                                             No. 06-09-00109-CR

                                                ______________________________

                                    DAVID HEATH FOUSE, Appellant

                                                                V.

                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                                                                                  

                                         On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court

                                                           Hopkins County, Texas

                                                          Trial Court No. 0820357

                                                                                                   

                                          Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

                                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

                                                     MEMORANDUM  OPINION

            David Heath Fouse has filed an appeal from six convictions.  Three are for the first-degree felony of aggravated sexual assault on a child (under fourteen—B.P.), and three are for the second-degree felony of sexual assault of a child (under seventeen—R.R. and C.J.).  A single brief has been filed to address all six appeals.  Fouse testified at trial.  He admitted that he was convicted in 1999 of the felony offense of assault on a peace officer and the state-jail felony offense of burglary of a building, and admitted having sexual intercourse with B.P. and C.J.  

            This appeal is from his conviction for aggravated sexual assault on a child under fourteen, on B.P.  There are no issues raised or argument made concerning this conviction.  When a point of error is inadequately briefed, we will not address it.  Vuong v. State, 830 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).  This situation goes one step beyond simple inadequate briefing.  Points are not merely inadequately briefed, they are not raised at all.  This Court is not the appellant’s advocate.  Although we have an interest in a just adjudication, we also have an interest in remaining impartial.  Ex parte Lowery, 840 S.W.2d 550, 552 n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992), rev’d on other grounds, 867 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1993).  Thus, we will not brief a defendant’s case for him.  Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see Busby v. State, 253 S.W.3d 661, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

            Further, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has explicitly held that an appellate court cannot reverse a case on a theory not presented to the trial court or raised on appeal.  Gerron v. State, 97 S.W.3d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).  With no arguments or theories to support a request for reversal being made in connection with this conviction on appeal, there is nothing before this Court which we may review.

            We affirm the judgment.

                                                                        Bailey C. Moseley

                                                                        Justice

Date Submitted:          April 28, 2010

Date Decided:             April 29, 2010

Do Not Publish