Opinion issued December 1, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 00718
- CR

——————————— IN RE JOHN JO N NICHOLSON , Relator

Original Proceed i ng on Petition for Wri t of Habeas Corpus

MEMORANDU M OPINION Relato r , Joh n J o n N icholson, has filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus. Relator ’ s application states that he was arrested for the felony

o f fense of theft

. 1 Relator asserts t hat h e i s being held i n the Harris County Jail “ in violation of [the T e x as Constitution ’ s ] d ouble jeopardy clause ” because he was

1 The unde rlying case is The S t ate of T e xas v. John Nicholson , C ause No. 16668 68 , pending i n the 179th District Cou rt of Ha rr is County, Texa s, the Hon orable Randy Roll pres iding.2

arrest ed on March 2 , 2020 and again on M arch 4 , 2020

. See T EX
. C ONST
. art. I, § 14

. He further asserts that he did not lea r n that a Harris County Grand J u ry issued a true bill of indictment on A p r il 23, 2020 until five months later and that he should not be in custody because a copy of the indictment was no t “ officially

se rved ” on him. Finally, h e asserts t hat he is being he l d in violation of Texas Code of Crimi nal Procedure article s 32. 01 and 3 2

. 46 , 2 and h e asks this Court to order the
t rial court to “ d ismiss charges [ against him ] with prejudice. ” See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 32.0 1

. The T exas Code of Criminal Pro c e dure vests original ju risdiction to issue a pretrial writ of habeas cor p us in a criminal case only in the Te x as Court of Criminal Appeals, the district court, the county cou rts, or a judge of those courts.
See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC . art s . 11.05 , 11.0 8. “ W e do not have original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas co rpus in a criminal case, much less jurisdict ion to consider an original pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpu s . ” In

re Farrow , No. 03

- 16

- 00354

- CV, 20 16 WL 3391551, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Aus ti n June 15, 2016, no pe t. ) ( mem. op. , not designated for p ublication ) ; s ee a lso T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC . art. 11.05 ; In re Shaw, 175 S.W.3d 901, 903 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2005, o rig. p r oceeding )

. Our habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal

2 The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain an article 32.4 6

. But see T EX
. P ENAL C O DE A NN
. § 32.46 (offense of securing execution of document by deception)

. Thus, it is unclear the ex ac t provision to wh ic h rel ator is referring.3

matters is appellat e only. See T EX
. G O V ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221(d); Ex parte Denby , 627 S.W.2d 4 35, 435 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, orig. proceeding)

. Further, a l though a n accused person may file an application for a pretri a l writ of habeas corpus in the trial court b as ed on doubl e - jeopard y grounds , the
claim is not cognizable unless the a pp lication for habeas corpus “ raises true double jeopardy claims

. . . arising out of violations of th e Double Jeopardy Clause

. ” Ex parte King , 134 S.W .3d 500, 50 3 (Tex. App.

— Austin 20 04, pet. ref ’ d)

. Relator does not direct this Court to any authorit ies e stablishing that jeopardy attache s to

mere arrests, and we are not aware of any

. Further, p retrial habeas relief gen er ally is not available to “test the sufficiency of the complaint, inform at ion, or indictment.” Ex parte Doster , 303 S.W.3d 7 20, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ( internal qu otations omitted )

. Finally, we note that no record was filed along with relator ’ s appli ca tion f or a writ of hab eas corpus . Relat or bears the bur den in a habeas p roc e eding , a n d
therefore , he must “bring forward an adequate rec ord ” to support his c omplaint. In

re Munks , 263 S.W.3d 270, 273 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, orig

. proceedin g ) ; see also T EX
. R

. A PP
. P. 52.7; I n re Turner , 177 S.W.3d 284, 288 (Tex

. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, ori g. proceeding )

. In the absenc e of a record, this Co urt has nothing to review ; see also T EX
. R

. A PP
. P. 52. 3(k).4

Acco rdingly , w e dismiss rel ator ’ s application for a writ of h abeas c or pus for lack of jurisd ict i on. W e di smiss all pending mot ions as moo t. PE R CURIAM Panel consists of Ju s tices Keyes, Hightower , and Countiss.
Do n o t p ublish

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).