Court Opinion

ID: 9774808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:34:20.163633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:16.297167
License: Public Domain

MALONEY, Judge,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of the majority because the issue is presented in a direct appeal setting rather than in a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus setting. Although Meek held that the defendant’s failure to sign a jury waiver was not subject to a harmless error analysis, I would point out that such requirement, while clearly designed to ensure that a defendant’s constitutional right to a trial by jury is waived only upon his consent, is nevertheless statutory and does not itself rise to constitutional proportions. As such, this issue is not cognizable in a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Sadberry, 864 S.W.2d 541, (Tex.Crim.App.1993); see also Ex parte Banks, 769 S.W.2d 539, 540 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (habeas corpus available only to review jurisdictional defects or denials of fundamental or constitutional rights); Ex parte Watson, 601 S.W.2d 350, 352 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (habeas corpus review only available for questions of jurisdictional defect or denials of fundamental or constitutional rights); Ex parte McKay, 82 Tex.Crim. 221, 199 S.W. 637, 639, 642 (1917) (habeas corpus is not a method of appeal and cannot be invoked for mere irregularities).
CAMPBELL and WHITE, JJ., join.