AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed May 26, 2022
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-01075-CR
EX PARTE JEREKIAL DANIELS
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. WX21-93106-Y
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Molberg, and Pedersen, III Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Jerekial Daniels appeals the trial court’s order denying relief on his pretrial
application for writ of habeas corpus. In two issues, appellant contends the State
lacked probable cause to arrest and detain him without a warrant, and the trial court
erred in taking judicial notice of his indictment to satisfy the State’s burden of proof
to show probable cause. We affirm the trial court’s order denying relief.
FACTS
On November 19, 2021, the State indicted appellant for aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon. On November 23, 2021, appellant filed an application for
writ of habeas corpus contending there was no probable cause to detain him. On
December 7, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on the writ application. During the writ hearing, the State informed the trial court that appellant had
been indicted, and provided a paper copy of the indictment printed out from the
Dallas County District Clerk’s online records database known as Onbase. The trial
court then determined that an indictment had been issued, and the issue of probable
cause was moot. After appellant objected to the State’s copy on the ground that the
State needed to provide an official, written copy of the indictment and the online
records were hearsay, the trial court took judicial notice that an indictment had been
returned by the grand jury on November 19, 2021. Over appellant’s hearsay
objection, the State admitted the paper copy of the indictment from Onbase into
evidence as an exhibit. The trial court denied relief on appellant’s writ application.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Appellant bears the burden to prove his claims by a preponderance of the
evidence. Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In reviewing
the trial court’s order, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
ruling, and we uphold the ruling absent an abuse of discretion. Id. The trial court is
the exclusive judge of witness credibility, and we afford almost total deference to
the trial court’s factual findings when those findings are based upon credibility and
demeanor. Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When
the trial court determines questions of law, or mixed questions of law and fact that
do not turn on an evaluation of witnesses’ credibility and demeanor, we review those
–2– determinations de novo. Ex parte Campozano, 610 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2020, pet. ref’d).
ANALYSIS
In his first issue, appellant contends the State failed to meet its burden of proof
to show probable cause for his detention. Appellant contends the State failed to meet
its burden because the only evidence offered—the copy of the indictment from
Onbase—was hearsay and not subject to judicial notice. In his second issue,
appellant contends it was inappropriate for the trial court to take judicial notice of
the indictment recorded in Onbase to satisfy the State’s burden of proof on probable
cause. Appellant contends that except for the trial court’s error in taking judicial
notice of the indictment from Onbase, there would have been no showing that he had
been indicted, and thus he was entitled to release when the State could not show
probable cause. Appellant further argues that without an indictment, the trial court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his case. Because resolution of the second
issue is necessary to resolve the first, we turn to appellant’s second issue.
Judicial Notice of the Fact of Indictment
This Court has already determined that we have the discretion to take judicial
notice of adjudicative facts that are matters of public record reflected in Onbase. See
In re Johnson, 599 S.W.3d 311, 311 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, orig.
proceeding).
–3– A court may take judicial notice of its own records. Turner v. State, 733
S.W.2d 218, 221–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The indictment online in the district
clerk’s Onbase website is a publicly-available record of the trial court reflecting the
proceedings in appellant’s case. Just as we can take judicial notice of the trial court’s
records in Onbase, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in taking
judicial notice of its own records in electronic form maintained by the district clerk
as part of Onbase. See Johnson, 599 S.W.3d at 311 & n.1.
Appellant contends we cannot rely upon the copy of the indictment in the
clerk’s record because the official copy in the clerk’s record was not available at the
time of the habeas hearing. Appellant contends that even though the clerk’s record
on appeal shows he was indicted, the record on appeal consists of the record as it
existed before the trial court at the time of the habeas hearing. See Ex parte Coleman,
350 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet). However, the record
before the trial court at the time of the habeas hearing included the fact of appellant’s
indictment as reflected in Onbase, and a copy of the indictment was admitted into
evidence in the reporter’s record. We conclude the record sufficiently documents
appellant’s indictment.
Appellant further contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction for want of an
official indictment. Appellant’s argument must fail given appellant’s indictment on
November 19, 2021 as reflected in the trial court’s records. See Jenkins v. State, 592
S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (“The presentation of a valid indictment
–4– vests the district court with jurisdiction of the cause.”). Accordingly, we overrule
appellant’s second issue.
Indictment and Probable Cause
Having established that the fact of appellant’s indictment was before the trial
court and part of the record, we now turn to appellant’s first issue and consider the
effect of the indictment.
Before he is indicted, an accused may file an application for writ of habeas
corpus to challenge the existence of probable cause to detain him. Ex parte Smith,
178 S.W.3d 797, 801& n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (per curiam). The return of an
indictment establishes probable cause as a matter of law and renders moot any issues
regarding probable cause. Ex parte Branch, 553 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex. Crim. App.
1977); Ex parte Cardenas, 557 S.W.3d 722, 736 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-
Edinburg 2018, no. pet.).
Appellant contends this case is governed by Ex parte Williams, which holds
that an accused is entitled to habeas relief when the State presents only a criminal
complaint to carry its burden to show probable cause to detain the accused. See Ex
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed May 26, 2022
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-01075-CR
EX PARTE JEREKIAL DANIELS
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. WX21-93106-Y
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Molberg, and Pedersen, III Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Jerekial Daniels appeals the trial court’s order denying relief on his pretrial
application for writ of habeas corpus. In two issues, appellant contends the State
lacked probable cause to arrest and detain him without a warrant, and the trial court
erred in taking judicial notice of his indictment to satisfy the State’s burden of proof
to show probable cause. We affirm the trial court’s order denying relief.
FACTS
On November 19, 2021, the State indicted appellant for aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon. On November 23, 2021, appellant filed an application for
writ of habeas corpus contending there was no probable cause to detain him. On
December 7, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on the writ application. During the writ hearing, the State informed the trial court that appellant had
been indicted, and provided a paper copy of the indictment printed out from the
Dallas County District Clerk’s online records database known as Onbase. The trial
court then determined that an indictment had been issued, and the issue of probable
cause was moot. After appellant objected to the State’s copy on the ground that the
State needed to provide an official, written copy of the indictment and the online
records were hearsay, the trial court took judicial notice that an indictment had been
returned by the grand jury on November 19, 2021. Over appellant’s hearsay
objection, the State admitted the paper copy of the indictment from Onbase into
evidence as an exhibit. The trial court denied relief on appellant’s writ application.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Appellant bears the burden to prove his claims by a preponderance of the
evidence. Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In reviewing
the trial court’s order, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
ruling, and we uphold the ruling absent an abuse of discretion. Id. The trial court is
the exclusive judge of witness credibility, and we afford almost total deference to
the trial court’s factual findings when those findings are based upon credibility and
demeanor. Ex parte Amezquita, 223 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When
the trial court determines questions of law, or mixed questions of law and fact that
do not turn on an evaluation of witnesses’ credibility and demeanor, we review those
–2– determinations de novo. Ex parte Campozano, 610 S.W.3d 572, 575 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2020, pet. ref’d).
ANALYSIS
In his first issue, appellant contends the State failed to meet its burden of proof
to show probable cause for his detention. Appellant contends the State failed to meet
its burden because the only evidence offered—the copy of the indictment from
Onbase—was hearsay and not subject to judicial notice. In his second issue,
appellant contends it was inappropriate for the trial court to take judicial notice of
the indictment recorded in Onbase to satisfy the State’s burden of proof on probable
cause. Appellant contends that except for the trial court’s error in taking judicial
notice of the indictment from Onbase, there would have been no showing that he had
been indicted, and thus he was entitled to release when the State could not show
probable cause. Appellant further argues that without an indictment, the trial court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his case. Because resolution of the second
issue is necessary to resolve the first, we turn to appellant’s second issue.
Judicial Notice of the Fact of Indictment
This Court has already determined that we have the discretion to take judicial
notice of adjudicative facts that are matters of public record reflected in Onbase. See
In re Johnson, 599 S.W.3d 311, 311 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, orig.
proceeding).
–3– A court may take judicial notice of its own records. Turner v. State, 733
S.W.2d 218, 221–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The indictment online in the district
clerk’s Onbase website is a publicly-available record of the trial court reflecting the
proceedings in appellant’s case. Just as we can take judicial notice of the trial court’s
records in Onbase, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in taking
judicial notice of its own records in electronic form maintained by the district clerk
as part of Onbase. See Johnson, 599 S.W.3d at 311 & n.1.
Appellant contends we cannot rely upon the copy of the indictment in the
clerk’s record because the official copy in the clerk’s record was not available at the
time of the habeas hearing. Appellant contends that even though the clerk’s record
on appeal shows he was indicted, the record on appeal consists of the record as it
existed before the trial court at the time of the habeas hearing. See Ex parte Coleman,
350 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet). However, the record
before the trial court at the time of the habeas hearing included the fact of appellant’s
indictment as reflected in Onbase, and a copy of the indictment was admitted into
evidence in the reporter’s record. We conclude the record sufficiently documents
appellant’s indictment.
Appellant further contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction for want of an
official indictment. Appellant’s argument must fail given appellant’s indictment on
November 19, 2021 as reflected in the trial court’s records. See Jenkins v. State, 592
S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (“The presentation of a valid indictment
–4– vests the district court with jurisdiction of the cause.”). Accordingly, we overrule
appellant’s second issue.
Indictment and Probable Cause
Having established that the fact of appellant’s indictment was before the trial
court and part of the record, we now turn to appellant’s first issue and consider the
effect of the indictment.
Before he is indicted, an accused may file an application for writ of habeas
corpus to challenge the existence of probable cause to detain him. Ex parte Smith,
178 S.W.3d 797, 801& n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (per curiam). The return of an
indictment establishes probable cause as a matter of law and renders moot any issues
regarding probable cause. Ex parte Branch, 553 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex. Crim. App.
1977); Ex parte Cardenas, 557 S.W.3d 722, 736 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-
Edinburg 2018, no. pet.).
Appellant contends this case is governed by Ex parte Williams, which holds
that an accused is entitled to habeas relief when the State presents only a criminal
complaint to carry its burden to show probable cause to detain the accused. See Ex
parte Williams, 587 S.W.2d 391, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). In a
footnote, however, the Williams opinion noted that the record did not reflect that the
accused had been indicted. See id.
Because there was no showing that the accused in Williams had been indicted,
Williams is distinguishable from the current case. Proof of appellant’s indictment
–5– renders questions of probable cause moot. See Branch, 553 S.W.2d at 381. Thus,
after the trial court took judicial notice of appellant’s indictment, the issue of
probable cause was moot, and the State had no burden to prove probable cause as
appellant contends. See id. We overrule appellant’s first issue.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s pretrial application for
writ of habeas corpus.
/Bill Pedersen, III// BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
211075f.u05
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–6– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
EX PARTE JEREKIAL DANIELS On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-21-01075-CR Trial Court Cause No. WX21-93106- Y. Opinion delivered by Justice Pedersen, III. Justices Schenck and Molberg participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court denying relief on appellant’s pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 26th day of May, 2022.
–7–