Court Opinion

ID: 9377198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 11:07:59.025868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:12.583911
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                     NO. 03-22-00773-CV

                                  Phillip G. Scott, Appellant

                                               v.

                          New Braunfels Municipal Court, Appellee

           FROM THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW BRAUNFELS

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

              Phillip G. Scott filed a notice of appeal on December 7, 2022, purporting to

appeal from a proceeding occurring in the municipal court of the City of New Braunfels and

seeking dismissal of the criminal charges against him. However, the notice of appeal does not

identify a final and appealable order or judgment from which Scott is seeking relief and over

which we would have jurisdiction to consider, and his notice of appeal indicates that no judicial

determination has yet occurred. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(d)(2) (requiring notice of appeal to

state date of judgment or order appealed from); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012

(authorizing appeal “from a final judgment of the district or county court”); Lehmann v. Har-Con

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that appeal generally may only be taken from

final judgment that disposes of all pending parties and claims in record unless statute provides

for interlocutory appeal). On February 10, 2023, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to Scott

asking him to explain how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal and warning him
that failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this appeal. Smith’s response was due on or

before February 21, 2023. To date, no response has been filed, and we must conclude that we

have no jurisdiction over this appeal.

               To the extent that Scott’s filing could be construed as an application for writ of

habeas corpus rather than a notice of appeal, we would be unable to provide the requested relief.

This Court does not have original habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases. See Tex. Const.

art. V, § 6 (explaining that appellate courts “have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such

restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law”); Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(d)

(authorizing habeas-corpus jurisdiction for intermediate appellate courts where person’s liberty is

restrained “by virtue of order, process, or commitment issued by” court or judge in civil case);

see also 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”). “As an intermediate appellate court, our habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters

is appellate only.” See In re Wilkins, No. 03-20-00381-CV, 2020 WL 5608486, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Austin Sept. 17, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

               Similarly, to the extent that Smith’s filing could be viewed as a petition for writ of

mandamus, he would not be entitled to his requested relief. To be entitled to relief, Smith has

the burden of providing this Court “with a sufficient petition and record to establish his right

to mandamus relief.” See In re Martin, No. 13-10-00336-CR, 2010 WL 2643086, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Austin June 25, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In

particular, Smith was required to file an appendix containing, among other things, “a certified or

sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained

of.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k). Further, Smith was required to file a record containing sworn

                                                 2
copies “of every document that is material to [his] claim for relief and that was filed in any

underlying proceeding.” Id. R. 52.7(a). Smith has failed to meet these requirements and,

therefore, failed to provide a petition and record that are sufficient to establish his right to the

requested relief. See In re Martin, 2010 WL 2643086, at *1; In re Randle, No. 01-07-00598-CR,

2007 WL 2129074, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 26, 2007, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op., not designated for publication).

               For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3(a), (c).

                                              __________________________________________
                                              Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: March 3, 2023

                                                 3