In Re Karl Keene v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 22, 2025
• Docket: 04-24-00830-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00830-CR

IN RE Karl KEENE

Original Proceeding 1 0F

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 22, 2025

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On December 4, 2024, Karl Keene filed a “Petition [sic] Writ of Habeas Corpus or Writ of

Mandamus.” In his petition, Keene requests that we issue a writ of habeas corpus or, in the

alternative, that we order the trial court to hold a hearing pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 38.8(b).

To the extent Keene asks this court to issue a writ of habeas corpus, this court lacks

jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal matter and therefore lacks jurisdiction to

grant the requested relief. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a) (granting appellate courts appellate

jurisdiction and “such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law”);

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (granting appellate courts limited jurisdiction to issue writs

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2023CR7223, styled The State of Texas v. Karl Keene, pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Joel Perez presiding. 04-24-00830-CR

of habeas corpus in civil cases); TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 11.05 (“The court of criminal

appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or any judge of those courts may issue the writ of

habeas corpus.”); Ex parte Braswell, 630 S.W.3d 600, 601–02 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021, orig.

proceeding); Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Further, to the extent Keene requests mandamus relief, the court concludes, after

considering the petition, that Keene is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, we dismiss Keene’s request for habeas relief for want of jurisdiction and deny

Keene’s request for mandamus relief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-