Opinion filed August 31, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00162-CR

__________

CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 441st District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR37161

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

Carol Johnene Morris appeals from the denial of a pretrial application for writ of habeas 

corpus. Morris filed an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the indictment 

charging her with a theft offense in Trial Court Cause No. CR37161. The trial court denied 

Morris’s application, and she timely filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

1

Morris contends that the indictment should have been dismissed because the State 

improperly amended the indictment without leave of court and because the enhancement 

 

1On this same day, we have dismissed as moot Morris’s appeal in Cause No. 11-10-00161-CR: an appeal from the 

denial of a pretrial writ of habeas corpus stemming from a separate indictment for theft, Trial Court Cause No. CR36894, for 

which Morris has now been convicted. 
2

paragraphs are defective. First, the record does not indicate that the indictment in Trial Court 

Cause No. CR37161 was ever amended. In her application, Morris referred to the indictment in 

this cause as “the new” indictment.2 At the hearing on Morris’s application, the trial court 

pointed out that the indictment had not been amended. There is nothing in the record indicating 

that the State improperly amended the indictment. 

Next, with respect to the enhancement paragraphs, we conclude that a pretrial writ of 

habeas corpus is not available. A pretrial writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary writ, and an 

application for such a writ should not be entertained when there is an adequate remedy by 

appeal. Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A pretrial writ of habeas 

corpus is cognizable only in very limited circumstances, such as when the accused is challenging 

the State’s power to restrain the accused; the manner of pretrial restraint, i.e., the denial or 

conditions of bail; or certain issues that would bar prosecution or conviction. Ex parte Smith, 

178 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). A pretrial writ application is not appropriate 

when resolution of the question presented, even if resolved in favor of the applicant, would not 

result in immediate release. Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 619. A pretrial writ of habeas corpus generally 

may not be used to test the sufficiency of an indictment, but it may be used to challenge the 

jurisdiction of the court if the face of the indictment shows that any prosecution is barred by the 

statute of limitations and that the pleading is not reparable. Smith, 178 S.W.3d at 802-04. Even 

if resolved in her favor, Morris’s complaint regarding the enhancement paragraphs would not 

result in her immediate release and would not bar the prosecution against her. 

Morris’s contentions are overruled, and the order of the trial court is affirmed. 

PER CURIAM

August 31, 2010

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.

 

2We note that the indictment in Trial Court Cause No. CR36894 was a reindictment.