Ronny Gene Smith v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 16, 2025
• Docket: 03-25-00197-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00197-CR

Ronny Gene Smith, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 67,764, THE HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ronny Gene Smith, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, has

filed a pro se notice of appeal from his 2011 conviction for sexual assault in trial court cause

number 67,764, accompanied by a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Tex. Penal Code § 22.011.

Smith has already appealed his conviction in cause number 67,764, and mandate

has issued. See Smith v. State, No. 03-11-00427-CR, 2013 WL 363685, at *6 (Tex. App.—

Austin Jan. 15, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., designated for publication) (affirming judgment of

1 The instructions for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 direct the applicant to file the petition with the clerk of the United States District Court, not the state court. See https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/forms/petition-writ-habeas-corpus-under- 28-usc-ss-2254 (last accessed Apr. 8, 2025). Insomuch as Smith intended to pursue relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Texas courts of appeal “lack jurisdiction over any aspect of federal habeas-corpus proceedings.” Ex parte Allen, No. 10-23-00241-CR, 2023 WL 5434493, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 23, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). conviction). He is not entitled to a second appeal, see Hines v. State, 70 S.W. 955, 957 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1902) (“[O]nly one appeal can be made from a verdict and judgment of conviction in

any case.”), and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the present appeal, see Waggoner

v. State, No. 03-22-00051-CR, 2022 WL 425987, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 11, 2022, no

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction defendant’s

subsequent appeal of conviction that had previously been affirmed); McDonald v. State,

401 S.W.3d 360, 361–63 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, pet. ref’d) (same). Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Theofanis, and Crump

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 16, 2025

Do Not Publish