Court Opinion

ID: 9635026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:32:44.383962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:15.015369
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Any way you approach it, this is now a collateral attack on a conviction rendered pursuant to a plea bargain. Kniatt cannot appeal the plea, so the Court is coming through the back-door to allow what cannot come in through the front-door.
Yes, because the trial court determined the merits of Kniatt’s application, we had jurisdiction to review the pre-trial habeas corpus. Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868-869 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). But when the trial court heard and accepted the plea and rendered its judgment, our jurisdiction to review the habeas terminated. Saucedo v. State, 795 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th] 1990, no pet.); Budd v. State, No. 07-97-0054-CR, 1998 WL 788755, *2-3 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Nov.10, 1998, no pet.)(not designated for publication); see also Ex parte Branch, 558 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). I would dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because the Court does not, I dissent.