Court Opinion

ID: 9941931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-19 16:08:27.30525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:27.115595
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued February 13, 2024

                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                          First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-23-00150-CR
                            ———————————
                   EX PARTE ANDRE RICARDO BAILEY

                    On Appeal from the 268th District Court
                           Fort Bend County, Texas
                     Trial Court Case No. 19-DCR-088627

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Andre Ricardo Bailey, acting pro se, attempts to appeal the trial court’s denial

of his “Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Requesting Dismissal of Indictment

in Violation of Due Process Right to Examining Trial.” We affirm.

      On September 9, 2019, the grand jury returned an indictment against Baily for

the felony offense of burglary of habitation. Bailey filed an application for writ of
habeas corpus on January 30, 2023, seeking dismissal of the indictment on the basis

that he did not receive an examining trial. The habeas application was denied on

February 15, 2023. Bailey filed a notice of appeal on February 24, 2023, challenging

the denial of his habeas application.

      Concerning Bailey’s assertion that he failed to receive an examining trial, the

code of criminal procedure provides, in relevant part: “The accused in any felony

case shall have the right to an examining trial before indictment ....” TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 16.01 (emphasis added). At the time Bailey filed his application for

writ of habeas corpus, he had already been indicted years before and, therefore, no

longer had “a right” to an examining trial. See id. Under well-established law, “the

return of an indictment terminates any right to an examining trial.” State ex rel.

Holmes v. Salinas, 784 S.W.2d 421, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (orig. proceeding).

      Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Bailey’s habeas application.

                                  PER CURIAM

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

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                           2