Court Opinion

ID: 9912868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-25 08:09:05.009501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:20.918006
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued December 21, 2023

                                         In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                                        For The

                            First District of Texas
                               ————————————
                                NO. 01-23-00907-CV
                              ———————————
                                IN RE A.L.C., Relator

          Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A.L.C. has filed a letter that we treat as a pro se petition for writ of habeas

corpus1 related to his juvenile adjudication that occurred in 2019 for aggravated

1
      See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (pro se complaint “is to be liberally
      construed”); Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 426–27 (5th Cir. 2011) (filings by
      habeas petitioners are “entitled to the benefit of liberal construction”; “[i]t is the
      substance of the relief sought by a pro se pleading, not the label that the petitioner
      has attached to it, that determines the true nature and operative effect of a habeas
      filing”).

                                            1
sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. On March 2, 2023, the juvenile

court signed a judgment confining A.L.C. to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department

for an indeterminate period not to extend past his 19th birthday or until his discharge.

A.L.C. appealed, and we dismissed the appeal because it was untimely. In re A.L.C.,

No. 01-23-00320-CV, 2023 WL 7029560, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

Oct. 26, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam).2

      In his petition, A.L.C. asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel

from trial counsel and that is also why he failed to timely appeal the juvenile court’s

judgment; that the guardian ad litem was unwilling to assist him in his appeal; and

that the juvenile court failed to modify his disposition to allow him to complete his

required treatment without losing credit for what he had completed.

      To obtain any relief, A.L.C must file his petition for writ of habeas corpus

with the juvenile court so that it may evaluate his petition. See In re Dorsey, 465

S.W.3d 656, 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (Richardson, J., concurring) (pro se

complaint in juvenile proceeding may be raised by a writ of habeas corpus but must

be done “through the juvenile justice system”); In re Hall, 286 S.W.3d 925, 927

(Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over

proceedings involving delinquent conduct, which continues after the child reaches

2
      The underlying case is In re A.L.C., Cause No. 2020-01085J, from the 315th District
      Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Leah Shapiro presiding.
                                           2
the age of majority); see also TEX. CONST. art. V, § 8 (district court judges “have the

power to issue writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction”); TEX. FAM. CODE

§ 56.01(o) (Juvenile Justice Code does not limit a juvenile’s right to obtain a writ of

habeas corpus). We note that A.L.C. may not seek a writ of habeas corpus through

Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure because juvenile proceedings

are civil. See Hall, 286 S.W.3d at 927 (although quasi-criminal, juvenile proceedings

are civil cases, so the Texas Supreme Court, “rather than the Court of Criminal

Appeals, is the Texas court of last resort”).

      Because A.L.C. has not filed an petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

juvenile court and received a determination, we lack jurisdiction to consider his

current petition. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(d) (limited writ powers granted to

the courts of appeals); see also Ex parte Valle, 104 S.W.3d 888, 890 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2003) (noting that the Texas Constitution gives the district court the power to

issue writs of habeas corpus and noticing that appellate courts have entertained

appeals from the outcome of a juvenile’s habeas proceeding); see, e.g., In re P.L.M.,

No. 01-11-00157-CV, 2011 WL 1234740, at *1 (Tex. App .—Houston [1st Dist.]

Mar. 31, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem.op.) (per curiam) (this Court does not have

original habeas jurisdiction over such matters). But A.L.C. is not precluded from

filing an petition for writ of habeas corpus under Article V, Section 8 of the Texas

Constitution with the 315th District Court of Harris County. If the district court does

                                           3
not respond, then he may seek relief by filing an petition for writ of mandamus from

the appropriate intermediate appellate court. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a).

                                       Conclusion

      Without expressing an opinion on the substance of A.L.C.’s petition for writ

of habeas corpus, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

                                              Sarah Beth Landau
                                              Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas-Molloy.

                                          4