Court Opinion

ID: 9881560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 13:09:03.511104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:17.485827
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                         San Antonio, Texas

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                             No. 04-23-00835-CR

                                    IN RE John Gilbert CENTENO Jr.

                                             Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 27, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           On September 6, 2023, relator John Gilbert Centeno Jr. filed a pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus arguing he is being illegally confined in the Bexar County Adult Detention Center.

Relator states on September 17, 2021, he was arrested and subsequently charged with a third-

degree felony of continuous violence against family. According to relator, after his arrest, the

State failed to comply with article 15.17 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and obtain a

judicial determination of probable cause to justify his warrantless arrest; the State failed to present

a “fee agreement affidavit” indicating “the court has appointed an attorney;” and the State does

not have standing to pursue any charges against him because the subject family member who is

the aggrieved party did not want to pursue any charges.

1
 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021CR11020, styled John Gilbert Centeno Jr. v. The State of Texas, pending
in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Andrew Carruthers presiding.
                                                                                       04-23-00835-CR

       We “may issue a writ of habeas corpus when it appears that the restraint of liberty is by

virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a court or judge because of the violation of

an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a civil

case.” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(d) (emphasis added). However, we do not have original habeas

corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 1999, no pet.); see TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6 (providing that courts of appeals “shall have

original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by

law”); TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(d) (limiting original habeas corpus jurisdiction of courts of

appeals to situations where relator’s liberty is restrained by virtue of order, process, or commitment

issued by court or judge in civil case). Original jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in a

criminal case is vested in the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or

a judge of those courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.05 (vesting “power to issue the writ

of habeas corpus” in “[t]he Court of Criminal Appeals, the District Courts, the County Courts, or

any Judge of said Courts”).

       Here, relator does not complain of an order, judgment, or decree entered in a civil case.

Accordingly, because our habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters is appellate only, we

dismiss relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction.

                                                  PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

                                                 -2-