in Re Prince Christopher Joseph Downum
This text of in Re Prince Christopher Joseph Downum (in Re Prince Christopher Joseph Downum) 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
NUMBER 13-22-00364-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE PRINCE CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH DOWNUM
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa1
On August 5, 2022, Prince Christopher Joseph Downum 2 filed a pro se petition for
writ of habeas corpus contending generally that he is being illegally restrained in his
liberty. Although the petition for writ of habeas corpus is unclear, Downum appears to be
raising issues regarding, inter alia, a competency hearing, ineffective assistance of
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). 2 Prince Christopher Joseph Downum is also identified in the documentation provided as Christopher Joseph Downum. counsel, criminal collusion, and his status as “[sovereign] Native [A]merican Royalty.” We
lack jurisdiction over Downum’s complaints.
The Texas Constitution grants the intermediate courts of appeals original
jurisdiction only where specifically prescribed by law. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a); Dall.
Morning News v. Fifth Ct. of Apps., 842 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
The original jurisdiction of a court of appeals to issue a writ of habeas corpus is limited to
those cases in which a person’s liberty is restrained because the person has violated an
order, judgment, or decree that has been rendered in a civil case. See TEX. GOV’T CODE
ANN. § 22.221(d). The intermediate courts of appeals do not have original habeas corpus
jurisdiction in criminal matters. See Ex parte Braswell, 630 S.W.3d 600, 601–02 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding); In re Quinata, 538 S.W.3d 120, 120 (Tex. App.—El
Paso 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Original jurisdiction to grant a writ of
habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the
district courts, the county courts, or a judge in those courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 11; Ex parte Braswell, 630 S.W.3d at 601; Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586,
588 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of habeas
corpus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over Downum’s
2 claims. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus for want of
jurisdiction.
LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2 (b).
Delivered and filed on the 9th day of August, 2022.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Prince Christopher Joseph Downum, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-prince-christopher-joseph-downum-texapp-2022.