Ex Parte Peter Gordon Okome v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 24, 2006
• Docket: 14-06-00018-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 24, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 24, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-06-00018-CR

EX PARTE PETER GORDON OKOME, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 7

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1343304

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant, Peter Gordon Okome, entered a plea of guilty for possession of marijuana.  The trial court placed appellant on community supervision and deferred a finding of guilt.  Appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, asserting his plea was involuntary because his attorney did not advise him of the plea=s effect on his immigration status.  After a hearing, the trial court denied the application.  Appellant appeals the trial court=s ruling.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Regardless of whether the trial court holds a hearing, there is no right of appeal from the trial court=s granting or denying an application for writ of habeas corpus.  Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Noe, 646 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). A right of appeal exists only if the trial court rules on the merits of the claims for relief requested in the writ.  See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 868; Ex parte Miller, 931 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex. App.CAustin 1996, no writ).  

At the hearing, appellant introduced the court reporter=s record from a previous hearing on a motion for new trial.  The State and appellant both waived argument.  The trial court ruled that A[b]ased on the evidence in front of me, I=m going to deny the application.@ (emphasis added).  A hand-written note on the docket sheet states Aapplication denied.@ (emphasis added).  The trial court did not enter a written order or findings of fact and conclusions of law.^[1]  Because nothing in the record indicates the trial court reached the merits of appellant=s complaints, we lack jurisdiction on appeal. Ex parte Noe, 646 S.W.2d at 231; Ex parte Miller, 931 S.W.2d at 725; Ex parte Carter, 849 S.W.2d 410, 411B13 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 1993, writ ref=d).         

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

/s/        Charles W. Seymore

Justice

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed August 24, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

---

^[1]  Article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure specifies the procedures for an application for a writ of habeas corpus in which the applicant seeks relief from an order or judgment of conviction ordering community supervision.  Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 11.072 (Vernon 2005).  Under article 11.072, the writ issues by operation of law, and the trial court must either issue a written order finding the application frivolous or enter findings of fact and conclusions of law.  See id.  However, appellant did not file his application under article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  Thus, an appropriate remedy for appellant under the circumstances is to file his application again under article 11.072.  Appellant may also present his application to another district judge having jurisdiction.  See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 868.