Otto Ray Kietzman v. State
This text of Otto Ray Kietzman v. State (Otto Ray Kietzman v. State) 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
The State of TexasAppellee/s
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 20, 2014
No. 04-14-00432-CR
Otto Ray KIETZMAN, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013W0631 Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding
ORDER On February 28, 2014, appellant filed an amended application for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from an extradition order. On March 14, 2014, the trial court signed an order denying relief, and appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from that order on March 18, 2014. On June 2, 2014, the trial court signed a second order denying relief, and appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from that order on June 11, 2014.
Appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review a trial court’s refusal to grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). “When a hearing is held on the merits of an applicant’s claim and the court subsequently rules on the merits of that claim,” however, “the losing party may appeal.” Id.
The clerk’s record contains an acknowledgment dated March 14, 2014, referring to a transfer of exhibits from the court reporter to the district clerk; therefore, it appears from the record that the trial court’s order dated March 14, 2014, was a ruling on the merits of appellant’s habeas claim and is an appealable order. The record does not, however, contain any document establishing that the trial court’s order dated June 2, 2014, also was a ruling on the merits of appellant’s habeas claim. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within two weeks from the date this order is signed why this court has jurisdiction to consider appellant’s appeal of the June 2, 2014 order. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will proceed only with regard to the trial court’s March 14, 2014 order. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court. _________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of June, 2014.
___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Otto Ray Kietzman v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otto-ray-kietzman-v-state-texapp-2014.