In Re Avery Cato v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Avery Cato v. the State of Texas (In Re Avery Cato v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-25-00032-CV
In re Avery Cato
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Avery Cato, a pro se inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
has filed a “Motion to W[ith]draw Subpoena,” in which he appears to contend that officers
lacked probable cause to arrest him for terroristic threat. Because Cato seeks release from what
he characterizes as a “false imprisonment,” we construe his motion as an original pretrial
application for writ of habeas corpus. See State v. Atkinson, 541 S.W.3d 876, 880 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (“[T]he substance of (and relief requested in) a motion—not
its label—controls the motion’s character.”); see also Ex parte Kerr, 64 S.W.3d 414, 419 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2002) (“The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to obtain a speedy and effective
adjudication of a person’s right to liberation from illegal restraint.”).
This Court does not have original habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases.
In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding); see
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.05 (listing courts with authority to issue writ of habeas corpus in
criminal proceedings); In re Arnett, No. 03-24-00234-CV, 2024 WL 3892451, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Austin Aug. 22, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“As an intermediate appellate court, our habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters is appellate only.”). Our original habeas
jurisdiction is limited to cases in which a person’s liberty is restrained because he or she has
violated an order, judgment, or decree entered in a civil case. Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(d); see
Tex. Const. art. V, § 6 (providing that courts of appeals “shall have original or appellate
jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law”).
Accordingly, we dismiss Cato’s application for want of jurisdiction. See Arnett,
2024 WL 3892451, at *1.
__________________________________________ Maggie Ellis, Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Ellis
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: January 24, 2025
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Avery Cato v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-avery-cato-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.