DISMISSED and Opinion Filed February 1, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00512-CR

EX PARTE MATTHEW GONZALEZ

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. WX20-90983-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers

Mathew Gonzalez appeals the trial court’s order denying the writ of habeas 

corpus regarding his pretrial bond. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court 

erred in holding his bond insufficient and in failing to hold a hearing on his writ 

application. Concluding we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

Background

Appellant was arrested for murder. After a Dallas County magistrate set 

appellant’s bond at $200,000, he was released on pretrial bond on December 26, 

2019. As a condition of release, he was required to wear an electronic leg monitor.
–2–

On March 12, 2020, appellant was indicted for murder. On that same date, the 

magistrate held appellant’s bond insufficient and increased his bond to $500,000. 

Appellant surrendered himself and was taken into custody. He was confined in the 

Dallas County jail.

On March 27, 2020, appellant filed a writ application styled “Application for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus for Bond Reinstatement or Release on Recognizance Due to 

Jail’s Inability to Provide Adequate Covid-19 Precautions and Treatment.” In his 

writ application, appellant asserted that he and his family had been unable to raise 

sufficient funds to post the increased bond, he has ties to the community and is not 

a flight risk, he had no trouble while on bond with electronic leg monitoring, and he 

presented himself to authorities on the date his bond was held insufficient. Appellant 

did not, however, use such facts to contend that the trial court should reduce his bail 

under the rules for setting bail set forth in article 17.15 of the code of criminal 

procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.15 (defining rules for fixing 

amount of bail). 

Instead, appellant contended that he should be released on a smaller bond or 

on his own recognizance because his right to due process of law will be violated if 

he is confined in the Dallas County Jail during the pandemic. Appellant characterizes 

the jail as overcrowded, understaffed, and underequipped to deal with the pandemic. 

Citing guidelines from the Center for Disease Control, he contends the county jail 

constitutes a “mass gathering” in violation of the CDC guidelines. As evidence, he 
–3–

provides links to a number of internet news stories about the closing of sporting and 

educational activities in an effort to reduce the number of mass gatherings of people.

Appellant’s writ application does not contain the required oath that the allegations 

in the application are true. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.14(5).

According to an unsworn declaration filed into the clerk’s record by trial 

counsel, on April 3, 2020, trial counsel emailed the trial court coordinator to ask if 

the trial court wanted to hold a hearing on appellant’s writ application and if so, 

whether the hearing could be held by videoconference. The court coordinator 

responded that the trial court wanted only written arguments. 

The trial court did not hold a hearing. Instead, on April 15, 2020, the trial court 

denied the writ without making findings. The order form the trial court used to deny 

relief contained three possible resolutions with an underlined space beside each 

potential resolution for the trial court to indicate its choice. The order stated:

On this day came on to be considered Applicant’s Application for Writ

of Habeas Corpus to reduce bail and the Court has:

 set this matter for hearing on __________2020, or

 GRANTED the writ and ORDERS the accused be released on their 

own recognizance subject to appear as required by the Court.

 X DENIED the Writ.

The trial court placed an “X” as indicated and signed the order.

On May 11, 2020, trial counsel filed a letter with the trial court clerk enclosing 

an email exchange with the trial court coordinator purporting to show he had 
–4–

requested findings of fact and the coordinator had replied: “From [the trial court].... 

Let him know I checked with the staff attorneys, and was informed that I was not 

required to do findings for a Writ hearing.” (Ellipses in original quotation).

Jurisdiction

In its brief, the State contends this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider 

appellant’s appeal because the trial court did not issue the writ and consider and rule 

upon the merits of appellant’s writ application. The State concedes appellant should 

be entitled to a hearing, but it argues this Court is powerless to provide appellant 

with an appellate remedy and suggests appellant should present another writ 

application to the trial court or else file a petition for writ of mandamus.

Appellant did not address the Court’s jurisdiction in his initial brief. In his 

reply brief, appellant contends we should presume the trial court adjudicated the 

merits when it considered the application because the order does not state anything 

to the contrary. Appellant further contends the trial court’s selection of an option to 

deny the writ rather than one of the other options shows it resolved the application 

on the merits. Appellant points to the email exchange about findings between trial 

counsel and the trial court coordinator as showing the trial court denied the writ 

application on the merits. Finally, appellant argues that the State’s proposed 

remedies are impractical. 

The writ of habeas corpus is an order, directed at the person holding the writ 

applicant in custody, to produce the writ applicant at a time and place specified in 
–5–

the order and explain why the writ applicant should be in custody. Ex parte Hargett, 

819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), superceded in part by statute as 

discussed in Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ex 

parte Jagneaux, 315 S.W.3d 155, 156 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, no pet.). Except 

for article 11.072 writs not applicable to this appeal, this Court does not have 

jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the trial court refuses to issue a writ of 

habeas corpus and does not address the merits of the writ application. See Ex parte 

Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 395–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 

at 869; Ex parte Noe, 646 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In determining 

whether the trial court reached the merits, we review the entire record. Ex parte 

Bowers, 36 S.W.3d 926, 927 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. ref’d).

Appellant first contends the order shows the trial court ruled on the merits 

because it states the trial court considered the application and we should presume 

that consideration included the merits because the order says nothing to the contrary. 

This Court must indulge every presumption in favor of a trial court’s judgment, and 

recitations in trial court orders and judgments are binding in the absence of direct 

proof of their falsity. See Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1985) (op. on reh’g). In this case, however, the order does not express any recitations 

about the merits of appellant’s application to which a presumption could apply. To 

the contrary, the trial court passed up the option to set the case for hearing and 

executed the option to deny the writ. 
–6–

Additionally, case authority suggests we should decline appellant’s 

suggestion to apply a presumption that the order implicitly addresses the merits. 

Case law makes clear that an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to consider 

an appeal unless the order and accompanying record expressly show the trial court 

resolved the merits. See Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 868 (trial court considered merits 

when it denied issuance of the writ and evidentiary hearing, but addressed merit of 

each allegation, found allegations without merit, and denied application); Bowers, 

36 S.W.3d at 936 (dismissing appeal where “[n]either the order—nor anything else 

in the record before us—reflects that the trial court considered the merits of 

appellant’s petition.”); Purchase v. State, 176 S.W.3d 406, 407 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (determining court of appeals lacked jurisdiction 

where record revealed trial court denied writ without hearing evidence or argument 

regarding applicant’s claims and expressed no opinion on merits of claims); Ex parte 

Williams, 200 S.W.3d 819, 820 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006, no pet.) (no appeal 

where trial court denied petition without issuing writ of habeas corpus and 

conducting hearing); Ex parte Miller, 931 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex. App.—Austin 

1996, no pet.) (per curiam) (no ruling on merits where order stated “The Court, 

having been presented the writ of habeas corpus . . . is of the opinion that the same 

should not be Granted, and that no hearing should be set on the Application . . . and 

the Application is in all things DENIED.” [ellipses in original]); see also Ex parte 

Lewis, No. 14-16-00629-CR, 2017 WL 6559647, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 
–7–

Dist.] Dec. 21, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(dismissing appeal where trial court did not hear evidence or argument addressing 

habeas claims, denied request for evidentiary hearing, and checked box on 

preprinted habeas judgment form stating “Orders Relief Denied.”). In the complete 

absence of any language in the order addressing the merits of appellant’s claims, we 

decline to apply a presumption that the trial court’s order addressed the merits of 

appellant’s writ application. See Purchase, 176 S.W.3d at 407.

Secondly, appellant contends the trial court’s selection of the option 

“DENIED the writ” must mean the trial court denied his writ application on its merits 

given the three choices available on the form. We disagree.

A plain reading of the order indicates the trial court considered appellant’s 

writ application and then chose to deny the writ of habeas corpus. In considering the 

three options available to the trial court in the order, the choices reflecting a 

determination on the merits would be to grant the writ outright or to set the matter 

for a hearing where evidence could be developed. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.

arts. 11.08, 11.10 (requiring trial court to set habeas application for hearing); 

Jagneaux, 315 S.W.3d at 156; see also Ex parte Campos, No. 14-17-00492-CR, 

2017 WL 4797839, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 24, 2017, no pet.) 

(not designated for publication) (concluding no appellate jurisdiction where trial 

court hand wrote “denied” on form order to set application for hearing). The trial 
–8–

court chose the one option on the form that did not involve issuing the writ of habeas 

corpus and setting the case for a hearing on the merits.

Appellant next contends that the record as a whole shows the trial court 

considered the merits in denying his application. The record does not show the trial 

court issued the writ of habeas corpus nor does it show the trial court conducted a 

hearing where the merits of appellant’s writ application could be developed. See 

Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 868. There is no evidence in the record, and the trial court 

did not issue any findings of fact. The record contains only appellant’s unverified 

assertions in his writ application.1

Appellant points to trial counsel’s declaration reciting that he had asked the 

court coordinator about findings of fact and the court coordinator had replied: “From 

[the trial court].... Let him know I checked with the staff attorneys, and was 

informed that I am not required to do findings for a Writ hearing.” (Ellipses in 

original quotation). Although appellant filed trial counsel’s declaration with the 

district clerk and had it included in the clerk’s record, it was not admitted into 

evidence in any judicial proceeding before the trial court, and thus is not properly 

part of the record on appeal. See Webber v. State, 21 S.W.3d 726, 731 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2000, pet. ref’d). The record shows there was no hearing, no evidence was 

 

1 Appellant’s failure to verify the allegations in his writ application does not impact the jurisdiction of 

the Court. See Ex parte Golden, 991 S.W.2d 859, 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In Golden, the court of 

criminal appeals concluded it could address the merits of the applicant’s habeas application because the 

case presented a sufficient record to show the applicant’s entitlement to relief. See id. 
–9–

presented, and no findings of fact were entered. We conclude the record as a whole 

does not show the trial court addressed the merits of appellant’s writ application.

Finally, regarding appellant’s contention that the State’s proposed remedies 

for his situation are impractical, we express no opinion about appellant’s options. 

Even if the available options present difficulties, such difficulties do not create

jurisdiction in this Court where none exists. See Williams, 200 S.W.3d at 820–23

(criticizing, but ultimately following, rule that no appeal lies from trial court’s 

refusal to issue writ of habeas corpus).

Because the trial court did not issue the writ of habeas corpus and decide the 

merits of appellant’s habeas application, we dismiss this appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See Hargett, 819 S.W.2d at 869; Bowers, 36 S.W.3d at 927.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

200512F.U05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–10–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

EX PARTE MATTHEW 

GONZALEZ

No. 05-20-00512-CR

On Appeal from the Criminal District 

Court No. 6, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. WX20-90983-

X.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Nowell and Goldstein 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal from the trial court’s 

order denying the writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 1st day of February, 2021.