in Re Warren Pierre Canady

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 4, 2010
Docket14-10-01002-CR
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Warren Pierre Canady (in Re Warren Pierre Canady) 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.

Bluebook
in Re Warren Pierre Canady, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2010.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-01002-CR

IN RE WARREN PIERRE CANADY, Relator


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1276450


M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            On October 13, 2010, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.  Relator complains that respondent, the Honorable Joan Campbell, presiding judge of the 248th District Court of Harris County, failed to release him on personal bond. 

            According to relator, his bond is currently set at $2,500 and he is unable to pay that amount. Relator claims it has been more than 90 days since he was taken into custody and the State has not announced ready. Relator asserts he is entitled to release on personal bond pursuant to article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Relator did not file any documentation with his petition.  Accordingly, the record does not reflect relator has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus with the trial court.  This court has no jurisdiction over a pretrial writ of habeas corpus.  Our habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters is appellate only.  See In re Shaw, 175 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. App. – El Paso, 1994, orig. proceeding).  Accordingly, we are unable to consider the merits of relator’s petition.

Accordingly, relator’s petition is ordered dismissed.

                                                                        PER CURIAM


Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Boyce, and Christopher.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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

Related

In Re Shaw
175 S.W.3d 901 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Ex Parte Hawkins
885 S.W.2d 586 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Warren Pierre Canady, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-warren-pierre-canady-texapp-2010.