## NO. 12

- 21

- 00230

- CR

IN THE COUR T OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

ARHONDA DESHAWN JOHNSON §
§
§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 1

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINIO N
Arhonda Deshawn Johnson appeals the trial court’s denial of he r pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus. She presents two issues on appeal. We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was arrested without a warrant on February 13, 2021, after allegedly trespassing on another’s property and subsequently struggling with police officers. She bonded out of jail the following day. Appellant was later charged by complaint and information with both criminal tresp ass and resisting arrest. At the arraignment hearing, Appe llant pleaded “not guilty” and requested a court

- appoi nted attorney. On December 13, Appellant filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, urging that “no probable cause exists for the detention.”
She further contend ed that the “restraint is illegal because [the trial court] lacks the power to

p roceed in the prosecution.” Following a hearing, the trial court ruled that “the complaint and information that’s been filed is what confers j urisdiction on this court” and found that Appellant’s issue s were moot. This appeal followed.

H ABEAS R ELIEF
In two issues, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her pretrial application. In her first issue, she argues the officers lacked probable cause to arrest her
without a warra nt. In her second issue, Appellant urges the trial c ourt did not acquire subject2 matter jurisdiction because it lacked a complaint and information. In the trial court, Appellant stated, “we inte nd to challenge the jurisdiction of this court on the validi ty and sufficiency of the charging instruments.”
The writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy. Ex parte Cruzata , 220 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). A defendant may use a pretrial writ of habeas corpus only in very limited circumstances

— fo r instance, to raise claims of double jeopardy, colla teral estoppel, and bail, because if he were not allowed to do so, those protections would be effectively
undermined. Ex parte Smith , 178 S.W.3 d 797, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Neither a trial court

nor an appellate court should entertain an application f or writ of habeas corpus where there is an adequate remedy at law, and we must be careful to ensure that a pretrial writ is not misused as an
i mpermissible interlocutory appeal. Ex parte Doster , 303 S.W. 3d 720, 724 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010 ); Headrick v. State , 988 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In general, we review the trial court ’ s ruling denying habeas relief for an abuse of
discretion a nd will not disturb the ruling unless the trial court acted without reference to any guiding principles. Ex parte Meltzer , 180 S.W.3d 252, 255

– 56 (Tex. App.

– Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (op. on reh ’ g). An a ppellant b ears the burden of establishing entitlement to habeas corpus
relief. Ex parte Alt , 958 S.W.2d 948, 950 (Tex. App.

–Austin 1998, no pet.). Appellant ’ s compla ints are not the proper subject s of a pretrial writ of habeas corpus. They do not raise issues of double jeopardy or collateral estoppel, nor d oes s he complain about the amount of bail set in this case. Appellant ’ s claim that s he was unlawfully arrested wi thout a warrant or probable cause is the proper subject of a motion to suppre ss to be reviewed on direct appeal. See Ex parte Conner , 439 S.W.2 d 350, 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); McKown v. State , 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.

– Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). To the extent Appellant’s complaints relate to defects in the charging instrumen ts, those are the proper subject of a motion to set aside or quas h and may also be challenged on direct appeal

. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A

NN

. art. 27.03 (West 2006 ); Doster , 303 S.W.3d at 724 (“[O]rdinarily, pretrial habeas is not
available to ‘test the s ufficiency of the complaint, information, or indictment.’” ) (quoti ng Ex parte Weise , 55 S.W.3d 617, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). Therefore, we overrule Appellant’s
first issue.
T o the extent Appellant challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction due to the l ack of a complaint and information, it is without merit. See Puen te v. State , 71 S.W.3d 340, 343 (Tex.3 Crim. App. 2002) (noting that a jurisdictional defect may be raised at any time, including on a writ of habeas corpus). Appellant states that the trial court record lacks a complaint and information. However, the rec ord indicates both the complaint and information were filed on July 21, 2021, prior to Appellant’s arraignment. Furthermore, the trial court referenced them during the hearing. In addition , trial counsel stated at the hearing, “the State has provided me a copy of the complaint and information, and we intend to challenge the jurisdiction of this Court
on the validit y and sufficiency of the charging instruments.” Therefore, the record demons trates that the trial court had both a complaint and information f or each count at the time of the habeas hearing. See State v. Ybarra , 942 S.W.2d 35, 36

- 37 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Chr isti 1996, pet. dism’d) (appellate court reviews the record as it existed at the habeas hearing and is not limited to testimony and evidence ad duced at hearing). We overrule Appellant’s second issue.

D ISPOSITION Having overruled Appellant’s first and se cond issues, we affirm the trial court’s denial of her application for writ of habeas corpus

.

B RIAN H OYLE Justice
Opinion delivered April 29 , 2022. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO N OT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 2 9 , 2022

NO. 12

- 21

- 00230

- CR

EX PAR TE: ARHONDA DESHAWN JOHNSON

Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1
of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 00391

- CCL

- 21 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief s filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of thi s court that there was no error in the
trial court’s order den ying Appellant ’ s application for writ of habeas corpus

. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the order denying Appellant ’ s applic ation for writ of habeas corpus of the court below be in all things
affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

Brian Hoyle , Justice

. Pa nel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.