Ex Parte Woodward

619 S.W.2d 179, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1127
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 22, 1981
Docket67931
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 619 S.W.2d 179 (Ex Parte Woodward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal 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 Woodward, 619 S.W.2d 179, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1127 (Tex. 1981).

Opinion

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This cause reaches this Court in the form of a habeas corpus appeal. We dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction in the trial court.

Petitioner has alleged that he is confined in the Texas Department of Corrections pursuant to a parole revocation following conviction and release on parole under a judgment in the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County. He has pursued habeas corpus relief in the 167th Judicial District Court of Travis County. He argues that his attack on the parole revocation proceeding is not a post-conviction habeas corpus petition governed by Art. 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. He contends that his situation is analogous to writ applications authorized by Art. 11.06, V.A.C.C.P., for the pre-indictment situation.

His attempt to distinguish his situation from the post-conviction situation under Art. 11.07, Sec. 2, supra, is not persuasive. Although his challenge is not addressed to the validity of the underlying conviction, it is nevertheless the case that his confinement is under authority of that conviction. Other post-conviction attacks have proceeded under Art. 11.07, Sec. 2, supra, even though the validity of the conviction was not at issue. E. g., Ex parte Chamberlain, Tex.Cr.App., 586 S.W.2d 547; Ex parte Tarlton, Tex.Cr.App., 582 S.W.2d 155; Ex parte Newell, Tex.Cr.App., 582 S.W.2d 835. The writ application in this case should have proceeded under that same provision. The District Court in Travis County, not being the court of conviction, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application.

The order denying relief is set aside and the appeal is ordered dismissed.

TEAGUE, J., dissents.

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

Related

Jones v. Davis
S.D. Texas, 2020
Jennings, Gary Don
Texas Supreme Court, 2015
Tout, James Emil
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Santana, Ex Parte Pedro Jose
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007
Ex Parte Santana
227 S.W.3d 700 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Ex Parte Kerr
64 S.W.3d 414 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Ex Parte Evans
964 S.W.2d 643 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Ex Parte Taylor
957 S.W.2d 43 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Board of Pardons & Paroles Ex Rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District
910 S.W.2d 481 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Ex Parte Alexander
861 S.W.2d 921 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Ex Parte Renier
734 S.W.2d 349 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Ex Parte Brager
704 S.W.2d 46 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
619 S.W.2d 179, 1981 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-woodward-texcrimapp-1981.