In Re Carne Mwangi v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00955-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 11, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00955-CR ——————————— IN RE CARNE MWANGI, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carne Mwangi, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

claiming unlawful incarceration in the underlying criminal case.1 We dismiss the

petition for lack of jurisdiction.2

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Carne Mwangi, cause number 1927342, pending in the 495th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Lori DeAngelo presiding. 2 Relator’s petition also fails to comply with the original proceeding requirements enumerated in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (form and content of petition); TEX. R. APP. P 52.7 (record). Intermediate appellate courts do not have original habeas jurisdiction in

criminal law matters. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(d) (original habeas jurisdiction

of courts of appeal is limited to cases in which person’s liberty is restrained because

person violated order, judgment, or decree entered in civil case); Chavez v. State,

132 S.W.3d 509, 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Our habeas

corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters is appellate only. See TEX. GOV’T CODE

§ 22.221(d); Ex parte Denby, 627 S.W.2d 435, 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

1981, orig. proceeding). Original habeas jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is

limited to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the county

courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.05. Thus, to the extent relator seeks to

have this Court grant his application for a writ of habeas corpus for the first instance

in our Court, we lack jurisdiction to do so.

Furthermore, the Harris County District Clerk’s website reflects that relator is

represented by appointed counsel. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation

and, as such, his pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus presents nothing for

this Court to review. See Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, 116 n.1 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2011) (because habeas applicant was represented by counsel, court must

disregard and take no action on pro se filings); Ex parte Hallcy, No. 07-16-00471-

CR, 2016 WL 7634497, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 30, 2016, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (finding that appellate court

2 lacks jurisdiction over original habeas application filed pro se where applicant was

represented by counsel and dismissing writ application).

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack

of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Gunn, and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).