Court Opinion

ID: 9926593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 13:16:07.744503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.495393
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                   No. 07-23-00454-CR

                           EX PARTE LACHARLES CURTIS

                               ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

                                   January 23, 2024
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

      LaCharles Curtis, proceeding pro se, has filed a document with this Court titled

“Motion to Dismiss for Speedy Trial Violation.” In the document, Curtis alleges that he

has been incarcerated since 2020, awaiting trial for criminal charges pending in the 364th

District Court of Lubbock County. Curtis appears to seek various relief from this Court,

including release from confinement, dismissal of his indictment, and an order directing

the trial court to rule on his speedy trial motions and motion to dismiss the indictment.

Accordingly, we have construed the document as both an application for writ of habeas

corpus and a petition for writ of mandamus.
       To the extent Curtis seeks habeas relief from this Court, 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 Curtis’s application for writ of habeas corpus for want of

jurisdiction.

       To the extent Curtis requests mandamus relief, the document fails to meet the

requirements of a petition for writ of mandamus as, inter alia, it is 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.”). For this reason, we deny Curtis’s petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                        Per Curiam

Do not publish.

                                             2