Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed in Part 

and Denied in Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed August 14, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00639-CR

IN RE PATRICIA ANN POTTS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

County Criminal Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1970525

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 7, 2014, relator Patricia Ann Potts filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus and writ of habeas corpus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator alleges that she is falsely 

imprisoned in the Harris County Jail, and has been deprived of her rights to a jury 

trial and a speedy trial. Relator asks this court to compel her release from custody, 

and to compel the Honorable Bill Harmon, presiding judge of the County Criminal 
2

Court at Law Number 2 of Harris County, to provide relator a jury trial 

immediately.

We are unable to consider relator’s request for habeas corpus relief, because 

this court has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See 

Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(d) (providing original habeas jurisdiction to the courts 

of appeals where a relator’s liberty is restrained by virtue of an order, process, or 

commitment issued by a court or judge in a civil case). Original jurisdiction to 

grant a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in the Court of Criminal 

Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or a judge of those courts. Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. art. 11.05. Although this court has jurisdiction in certain circumstances 

to consider an interlocutory appeal of the denial of an application for a pretrial writ 

of habeas corpus, that jurisdiction exists only where the issue raised is cognizable 

in habeas. See Ex parte Morales, 416 S.W.3d 546, 548 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d). A pretrial writ of habeas corpus may not be used to assert 

the right to a speedy trial. See Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 620 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2001). Moreover, there is no indication that relator has filed an application 

for a writ of habeas corpus with the trial court. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s 

petition for want of jurisdiction insofar as relator seeks a writ of habeas corpus.

With regards to relator’s request for mandamus relief, she has not satisfied 

her burden to demonstrate entitlement to such relief. “The relator generally must 

bring forward all that is necessary to establish a claim for relief.” In re Potts, 399 

S.W.3d 685, 686 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, orig. proceeding); see 

also Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a)(1). Relator asserts in her petition that 

she has been denied her rights to a jury trial and a speedy trial. But, relator has not 
3

provided this court any documentation along with her petition that pertains to her 

jury trial complaint. And, the only documentation she provides in support of her 

speedy trial claim is a copy of a case reset form that is neither certified nor sworn 

as the Rules of Appellate Procedure require. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). 

Moreover, there is no documentation that relator first presented her complaints to 

the trial court. “Mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for an 

action and a refusal of that request.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). Because relator has not demonstrated 

her entitlement to mandamus relief, we deny the remainder of relator’s petition. 

Therefore, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of 

jurisdiction and we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Busby.

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