Ex Parte: Epimenio Campos

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 5, 2005
• Docket: 13-05-00304-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                 NUMBER13-05-304-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

________________________________________________________________

EX PARTE EPIMENIO CAMPOS

_____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Yañez

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

         Applicant, Epimenio Campos, has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in this Court complaining of his confinement and other issues relating to the underlying criminal cause. We dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

          This Court does not have original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Wood, 125 S.W.3d 805, 806 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2004, orig. proceeding); Self v. State, 122 S.W.3d 294, 295 (Tex. App.–Eastland 2003, no pet.); Ex parte Hearon, 3 S.W.3d 650, 650 (Tex. App.–Waco 1999, orig. proceeding); Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1999, no pet.). As it relates to the case now before us, we are not among the list of courts authorized by the Texas Legislature to issue writs of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.05 (Vernon 2005). 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. See id.

          As an intermediate appellate court, our authority to grant extraordinary writs extends only to situations wherein issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction over a matter pending before us, or the applicant is being restrained due to a violation of an order, judgment, or decree rendered in a civil case. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. art. 22.221(a), (d) (Vernon 2004); Ex parte Layton, 928 S.W.2d 781, 782 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1996, orig. proceeding). In the instant case, Campos is complaining of his confinement and other issues relating to the underlying criminal cause. Thus, we cannot entertain his request for habeas relief.

          We dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.      PER CURIAM

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 5th day of May, 2005.