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 WRI T 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 c orpus in this c ourt. 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 Criminal2

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 cognizab le
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 not3

provided this court any documen tation 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 r equire. 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. “M andamus relief generally requires a predicate request for an action and a refusal of that request.” In re Le , 3 35 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 c orpus 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).