Court Opinion

ID: 9955314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 09:15:41.933155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:29.990043
License: Public Domain

In The
                                  Court of Appeals
                         Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                          No. 07-24-00094-CR

                                EX PARTE JOSHUA JOE MOLINAR

                                     ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

                                            March 27, 2024
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

        Joshua Joe Molinar, proceeding pro se, filed documents with this Court titled (1)

“Ex Parte Motion for Speedy Trial Pursuant to Sixth Amendment,” (2) “Ex Parte for

Dismissal Pursuant 18 Appendix U.S.C. SEC 48(b)(3),” and (3) “Ex Parte Motion to

Dismiss Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1).” By these documents, Molinar

requests that we dismiss his pending criminal charges.                       We have construed the

documents collectively as an application for writ of habeas corpus.1

         1 By letter of March 12, 2024, we directed Molinar to demonstrate how we have jurisdiction over

this original proceeding. In response, Molinar filed an additional document titled “Application for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Seeking Relief Under Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.07,” again requesting
dismissal of his criminal indictment.
        Intermediate courts of appeals do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in

criminal law matters. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (limiting original habeas

jurisdiction of intermediate appellate courts to civil cases); Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d

586, 588–89 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). That jurisdiction

instead rests with the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the county courts.

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05, 11.08, 11.09; Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d

at 588.

        Consequently, we dismiss Molinar’s application for writ of habeas corpus for want

of jurisdiction.2

                                                                     Per Curiam

Do not publish.

        2 To the extent the documents filed by Molinar seek mandamus relief, we note that they fail to meet

the requirements of a petition for writ of mandamus as, inter alia, they are not accompanied by a record.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (delineating the required form and contents for a petition for writ of mandamus),
52.7 (requiring relator to file a certified or sworn copy of every document material to the claim for relief that
was filed in the underlying proceeding). Without a mandamus record, we cannot determine whether
mandamus relief is warranted. See In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when the relator shows that
the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.”).
                                                       2