Affirmed and P lu rality Opinion and Two Concurring Opinion s filed January

30, 2020

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 18

- 00568

- CR

EX PARTE DAVID WILLIAMS , Appellant

On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No

. 89988

- WR

PLU RALITY OPINION

App el l ant David Williams is currently an inmate in the Texas prison system serving time for a felony off ense. H e filed an application for writ of habeas corpus,

also know n as a “ medical writ, ” seeking to be released on bail b ecause he suffers from congestive he a

rt failure a nd wishes to seek a heart transpla nt outsi de the Texas prison system

. Appella nt receives treatment for his heart condition at the

Uni versit y of Texas Medical Bran ch at Galveston ( UTMB Galv eston) , w here he

wa s being evaluated for a h eart transplan t

. Appellant wishes to seek a bloodless heart transpla nt on religious grounds. 1 UTMB Galv eston does not offer this

1 As a Je hovah ’ s Witness, appellant is forbi dden from receiving blo od transfusion s.2

procedure. 2

After a he aring , the habeas court denied the application. On appeal, appellant contends t hat the court erred in conc luding it lac ks authority to rel ease appellant

. Concluding that the trial court lack ed jur isdiction over this appeal under controlling Court of Criminal Appeals ’ prece dent and thus correc tly denied the application for writ

, we af firm

. Appellant s ought habe as relief und er article 11.25 of the Code of Criminal procedure , which provides :

When a judge or court authorized to grant writs of habeas corpus shall be satisfied, upon investigation, that a person in legal custody i s afflicte d with a disease which will render a rem oval necessary for the preservation of life, an order may be made for the removal of the prisoner to some other place where his health will not be likely to suffer; or he may be admitted to bail when it app ears that any species of confinement will endanger his life.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. § 11.25

. 3

The Court of C riminal Appeals held in 1981 that the phrase “ legal custody ”

in article 11.25 “ does not con template a release after conviction of a felony. ” Ex parte Baltimore , 616 S.W.2d 205, 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 981) (citing Ex parte

Smith , 64 S.W. 1052 (Tex. Cr. App. 1901) and the predecessor stat ute to article

2 T h e State contends that appellant has not shown that he can receive a bloodless heart transplant elsewhere without consenting to an emergency backup transfus i on if needed

. Appellant te stified that three hospitals in the United States off er this proced ure but conceded at the hearing that whether these hospitals “ requir [ e] blood if ne eded ” was “ outside the scope of [his] knowledge. ” The State also argu es that app ellant is not eli gible for a heart transplant because he is nonco mpliant in tak ing his pr escr ibed medi cations. Appel lan t disputes th is latter allegation and presented evidence to the contrary

. Thus, the habeas court heard con flicting eviden ce on this issue

.

3 Appellant does not see k removal to another place in the Texas prison system because he

co ntends that he cannot get a bloodless heart transplant unles s he goes to one of only thr ee hospitals in the United States that offer the procedure.3

11.25 and holding “ [w]e ad he re to the Smith opinion as to the interpretation of the

p hrase ‘ legal custody ’ as it n ow appears in Arti cle 11. 25 ” ))

. T h e C ou rt further he ld that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to release a felon under article 11.25 and thus the

habeas court correctly denied the appellant ’ s medical writ

. Id

. The C ourt affirmed

the habeas court ’ s judgment. Id . at 208.

Appellant contends that Baltimo re w as wrongly decided . We agree : t he pla in language of the statute does not con te mplate an exception for felony offen ders. But

t he language in article 11. 25 is the same as when Baltimore was decided , and the

Co u rt of Criminal Appeals has neve r revisited t he Bal timore deci sion. “ [U] nder the

doctrine of stare decisis [

, ] once ‘ the highest court of the State having jurisdiction ’

of a matter decides a ‘ principle, rule or proposition of law, ’ that court and all ‘ other

courts of lower rank ’ must accept the decision as ‘ binding precedent. ’ ” Romero v.

State , 331 S.W.3d 82 , 86 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref ’ d) (Seymore, J., concurr ing ) ( quoting S willey v. McCain , 374 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Tex. 1964) (emphasis add ed) )

. T he Court of Crim inal Appeals has final appellate jurisdiction over questions of law in criminal cases. Tex. Const. art. V, § 5 ;

Romero , 331 S.W.3d at 86

. In accordance with the binding precedent of the high
court, we must affirm the trial court ’ s or der denying the writ

.

/s/ F rances Bourliot Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Bourliot and Poissant

. ( Frost, C.J., concurring, and P oissant, J., concurring).

Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).