Opinion filed February 9, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-23-00017-CR

__________

IN RE FRED GONZALES

Original Proceeding 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, Fred Gonzales, has filed this original proceeding pro se. According 

to Relator, he has been charged with aggravated assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 22.02 (West Supp. 2022). Relator states that the 91st District Court of Eastland 

County has issued an “order of incompetence” in his case on December 9, 2021. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.005 (West 2018). In his petition, Relator

requests this court to provide him with various forms of relief based on alleged 

violations of his rights by his defense attorney, the district court, the district clerk, 

the jail, and a visitor at the jail “who does competency restoration.” We dismiss the 

proceeding. 
2

This court has no jurisdiction over this original proceeding, which Relator 

calls a petition for discretionary review. This court’s authority to exercise original 

jurisdiction is limited. See TEX. CONST. art. V, §§ 5, 6 (providing that the Court of 

Criminal Appeals has the power to issue writs of habeas corpus and that intermediate 

courts of appeals only have original jurisdiction as prescribed by law); TEX. GOV’T 

CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2022) (limited writ powers granted to the courts 

of appeals). As an intermediate appellate court, we have no authority to order the 

jail to provide Relator with additional postage or envelopes, allow him to have his 

own cell or be placed in segregation, allow him to become a trustee of the jail, or

allow him more “privileges” such as a television. We also have no authority to direct 

his defense attorney, the district clerk, or a jail visitor to act. See GOV’T CODE 

§ 22.221(a), (d).

Moreover, we have no authority to order his pending “felony case dismissed 

and expunged from [his] record.” To the extent Relator requests release from 

custody, we do not have original habeas jurisdiction to entertain such a request. See 

In re Proctor, No. 11-20-00075-CR, 2020 WL 1181934, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland 

Mar. 12, 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (courts of appeals do not have original habeas jurisdiction in criminal 

cases); see also GOV’T CODE § 22.221(d) (limiting original habeas jurisdiction to 

civil cases); CRIM. PROC. art. 11.05 (West 2015) (original habeas jurisdiction is 

limited to county courts, district courts, and the Court of Criminal Appeals).

We note that the allegations against the district court appear to be related to 

an “incompetency order” issued by the judge. The document Appellant refers to is 

not in the record for our review. To the extent Appellant attempts to appeal a finding 

of incompetence, we also lack jurisdiction to address such an appeal. See CRIM.

PROC. art. 46B.011; In re Commitment of V.S., No. 11-21-00198-CV, 2022 WL 

120785, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Jan. 13, 2022) (mem. op., not designated for 
3

publication) (courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to conduct an interlocutory review 

of a trial court’s findings of incompetence to stand trial); see also Ragston v. State, 

424 S.W.3d 49, 51 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (courts of appeals only have jurisdiction 

to review interlocutory orders expressly granted by law); McKown v. State, 915 

S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (noting limited jurisdiction 

to consider pretrial orders in criminal cases).

We dismiss this original proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

February 9, 2023

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.