T hi s C our t r ev er sed Hi noj osa’ s conv i ct i on a nd r em anded f or a new t r i al , concl udi ng t hat t he t r i al 1 c o u rt e rr e d i n a l l o w i n g th e S ta te to a m e n d th e i n d i c tm e n t o n th e d a te o f th e tri a l

. H in o j o s a v . S ta te , 875 S. W

. 2d 3 39, 342 (T ex. A pp. –C or pus C hr i st i 1994, no pet

. )

. Aft er t he se cond t r i al , H i noj osa was sent enced to te n y e a rs ’ i m p ris o n m e n t.

H i noj osa a ppear s t o t ake i ssue wi t h a di scr epancy per t ai ni ng t o hi s sent ence. H i noj osa a l l eges t hat



### NUM BER 13-07- 0069 9-CR 

## C OU RT O F A PPEA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

M IGUE L HIN OJOSA , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 35 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## M EMO RA NDUM OPI NI ON ON REHE A RI NG Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Garza

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam App ellant , Mig uel Hinojo sa, w as con v icted o f ill egally in ve s t in g f und s to posse ss mari huana, a felony , and w as sent enced to thi rt y -n ine y ear s in pri son w it h a $ 100,000 fine. 1t he W est l aw T exas Cr i m i nal H i st or y dat abase i ndi cat es t hat he r ecei v ed a t hi r t y - ni ne y ear sent ence, whi ch

does not cor r espond t o t he t en- y ear sent ence i m posed by t he t r i al cour t af t er t he se c on d t ri al

. Hi noj osa as s ert s t ha t t hi s di s c rep an c y am ou nts t o a n “i m pe di m en t or bu rde n l i m i t i ng ” hi s “phy s i c al l i be rt y
. ” H ow eve r, H i noj osa st at es t hat “ [ t ] he e r r or i n t he T D C J- I D sy st em
. . . i s not one f or t hi s C our t t o cor r ect , nor ov er whi ch th is C o u r t h a s j u r is d ic tio n to c o r r e c t. ” T h is s ta te m e n t s u p p o r ts o u r c o n c lu s io n th a t H in o j o s a ’s “ a p p e a l” is r e a lly a p o s t-c o n v i c ti o n w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s
.

T he t r i al cour t ’ s August 15, 200 7 or der was no t m ade a pa r t of t he r ecor d be f or e us. 2
W e m ay not consi der t he a r gum ent s m ade by H i noj osa i n hi s pr o se m ot i on f or r ehear i ng b ecause 3 H i n o jo s a i s n o t e n ti tl e d to h y b rid re p re s e n ta ti o n
. S e e S c h e a n e tte v . S ta te , 144 S. W

. 3d 5 03, 505 n. 2 ( T ex. C rim . A p p
. 2 0 0 4 ) (h o l d i n g th a t a p a rty n e i th e r h a s a rig h t to h y b rid re p re s e n ta ti o n n o r a c o n s ti tu ti o n a l ri g h t t o re p re s e n t h i m s e l f o n d i re c t a p p e a l ); L a n d e rs v . S ta te , 5 5 0 S .W .2 d 2 7 2 , 2 7 8 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ); see a l so L a tc h i e v . S ta te , N o. 13- 06- 00233
- C R , 2007 T ex. App. LEX I S 6127, at * 8 n. 2 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Aug. 2, 2007, pet

. di sm ’ d) ( m em
. op. , not desi gnat ed f or pub l i cat i on)

. As such , we DE N Y H i noj osa’ s pr o se m ot i on f or r ehear i ng. 2 See Hi nojosa v. State , 875 S.W .2d 339, 33 9- 40 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1994, no p et.) (ci ti n g T EX
. H E A L TH & S AFE T Y C OD E A NN . §§ 48 1.1 21 (Ve rnon 200 3)). Hi nojo sa subs eq uentl y

att empted t o appea l an or der is sued by the tr ial co urt on Aug ust15, 2007. 2 See H ino jos a v . St ate , No

. 1 3 -0 7 -0 0 6 9 9 -C R, 2 0 0 8 T e x. A p p
. L E XI S 5 1 1 8 , a t*1 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti Ju ly 10, 2008, no pet .) ( per cu ri am) (mem. op., no t d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. After noti fyi ng H ino jos a of v ar iou s d efects ass oci ated w it h h is n oti ce of appeal of w hic h H ino

jos a i g nor ed, w e di smi ss ed th e matt er on J uly 10, 2008. Id. W e conclu ded that (1) the o rder f rom w hich Hinojosa a ppe aled was n ot an app eala ble orde r, and ( 2) H ino

jos a fail ed to ti mely

fil e and cur e defects i n hi s n oti ce of appeal

. Id. On J ul y 2 5, 2 00 8, H i no

j os a, w hi l e r ep r es en te d by a pp oi nt ed c oun sel, Phi l i p T. Cow en, fil ed a pr o se moti on for re hear ing

. On Aug ust 13, 2008, Cow en fil ed a “M OTION 3 TO D ISM ISS FO R LAC K OF JU RI SD IC TION , AN D MO TION F ORLEAV E TO F ILE FO R REHEARING FOR TH E PU R PO SE S [s i c ] OF D IS M ISSA L FOR LACK OF JURISDICTI ON” on Hinojosa’s beh alf

. In this mo tion, Cow en e x plains th at Hinojo sa’s “appe al” w as really a pos t- conv ic ti on w ri t of ha beas cor pus w hic h depr iv ed thi s Cou rt of jur is dic ti on. Cow en3

further ex pla ins thatH ino

jos a’s m a in c o n tenti on i n hi s “ appeal ” is thathe d esi re s a co py of t he “ tr ansc ri pt an d doc uments r ela ti ng to the c ommencement of his ch ar g es and subs eq uent ind ictm e n t” so that“ he c an us e thi s i n an appr opr iat e pr oceed ing to
s u b s t a n t i a t e h i s p e r

j u r y a l l e g a t i o n s a n d t o h o p e f u l l y t h u s s e ta s i d e h i s c o n v i c t i o n
. ” W e
c o n s t r u e H i n o

j o s a ’ s “ a p p e a l ” a s a p o s t
- c o n v i c t i o n w r i t o f h a b e a s c or pus, see T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.01 (V er non 2005) (“ The w ri t of habeas co rp us is the re medy to be us ed w hen any per son is re str ain ed in his li ber ty .” ), and w e GRAN T Hi noj osa’ s mot ion to dis mis s f or

lack of jur is dic ti on and moti on f or leav e to file re hear ing for t he pur poses of dis mis sal for l ack

of jur is dic ti on
. I. A PPLI C A B LE L AW This C our

t’ s habeas cor pus jur is dic ti on i s a ppel lat e onl y ; w e hav e no jur is dic ti on to i s s u e w r i t s o f h a b e a s c o r p u s i n c r i mi n a l ma t t e r s. De n b y v. Sta te , 627 S.W .3d 4 35, 4 35 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 198 1, or ig . proceed ing ) (p er curi am). The pow er

to is sue
w ri ts of habeas cor pus in c rim in a l matters i s e x pr ess ly r eser v ed to the Cou rtof Cr imi nal App eals, th e District C ourts, t he Coun ty Courts, and a ny judge of such cou rts. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.05 (V er non 200 5)

. Mo re ov er , t he C our t of C ri minal Appea ls has sol e j ur is dic ti on to gr ant p ost -c onv ic ti on habe as cor pus re li ef f ro m a final felony co nv ic ti on. Id. ar t. 11.07 (V er non Su pp. 2 007) ; Boar d of Par dons & Pa ro les

ex r el. Keene v. Ei

ghth Court of Ap pea ls , 910 S.W .2d 4 81, 4 83 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1995)

. Thus, we hav e nei ther
or ig ina l habeas co rp us ju risdic ti on i n c ri minal ca ses nor pos t- conv ic ti on habe as cor pus jur is dic ti on in felony

ca ses
. See D odson v. Sta te , 988 S.W .2d 833, 835 (Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o 1999, no p et.) ; see als o In re Bas quez , No. 13- 07- 222- CR , 2007 Tex

. App. LEX IS 28 25 , at * * 1- 2 n. 2 ( Tex

. Ap p. –C or pu s C hr i s ti Ap r
. 10 , 20 07 , or i g
. proc ee di ng ) ( pe r c ur i am )4

(mem. op., not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. II. D I S CUS S I ON In his Aug ust 13, 2008 moti on, Hi noj osa ar g ues that he bel iev ed tha t p er jur ed tes ti mony

w as pr off er ed at

the g ra nd jur

y pr oceed ing s. As suc h, he r eq uest s a co py of the “t ra nsc ri pt an d documents rel ati ng to the commencementof his charg es and s ubseq uent indictm ent ” so that “he can use this in an app ropriate p rocee ding t o subst ant iate his perjury all eg ati ons and t o hopeful ly thus se t as ide hi s c onv ic ti on.” As a ma tt er of c on s ti tu ti on al eq ua l prot ec ti on , an i nd i g en t c r i mi na l de fen dan t is enti tl ed to a fre e tr ansc ri pt of pr ior pr oceed ing s w hen t hat tr ansc ri pt i s n eeded for an eff ect iv e defense or

appeal

. Br

itt v . Nor th C ar oli na , 404 U .S. 226, 227 ( 1971) ; see Ar m our
v. State , 606 S.W .2d 8 91, 8 93- 94 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 198 0) ; see als o Es cobar

v. State , 880 S.W .2d 7 82, 7 83 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 1993, no pet .)

. How ev er , an indigent crimin al def end ant is not ent itled to a f ree tr anscript ion of prior proceed ings fo r use in pur sui ng pos t- conv ic ti on habe as re li ef. In r e T re vi no , 7 9 S

. W

. 3 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 6 (T e x. Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, or ig . proceed ing ); see In r e C or onado , 9 8 0 S

. W

. 2 d 691, 693 (Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1998, ori g . proc eedi ng ) ( re q uir ing an ind ig ent cr imi nal defendant to s how that the habeas cor pus act ion is not fri v olo us and t her e i s a sp eci fic n eed for the
re cor ds soug ht) ; Esc obar v. Sta te , 8 80 S. W .2d 7 82, 7 83 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 1 9 9 3 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g United States v. M acC oll om , 426 U .S. 317, 322- 23 ( 1976) ); see a lso In r e Ev ans , No. 13- 08- 00151- CR , 2008 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4 799, at * 2 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ju ne 26, 2008, o rig. pr oceed ing ) (p er cu ri am) (mem. op., not d esi g nated for p u b lic a ti o n ). Th e re fo re , Hi n o jo sa is n o t e n ti tl e d t o a f re e tra n sc rip ti o n of pri o r pr o ce e d in gs for us e i n pursui ng hi s p ost -c onv ic ti on habe as re li ef.5

Beca u s e H i n o

j o s a ’ s c o mp l a i n ta r i s e s fro m a p o s t
- c o n v i c t i o n fe l o n y h a b eas pr oce e d ing and becau se thi s C our t doe s n ot ha v e j ur is dic ti on to ente rt ain su ch a pr oceed ing , H ino

jos a’s co mplai nt s houl d be dir ect ed to the Cou rtof Cri minal Appeals

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.07, § 3( a) ; see a lso Ex parte Garcia , 988 S.W .2d 2 40 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1999)

. W e GRAN T Hi noj osa’ s motion to dis mis s f or lack of jur is dic ti on and moti on for lea v e to file re hear ing for t he pur poses of dis mis sal for l ack of jur is dic ti on , and w e D EN YH ino

jos a’s pr o s e moti on for re hear ing

. Accordin gly , the app eal is hereb y DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICT ION.

PERC UR IAM Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n on Reh ear ing del iv er ed and fil ed th is the 4th d ay of Dec ember , 200 8.