Ex parte Gonzales
| Citation | 12 S.W.3d 913 |
| Parties | (Tex.App.-Austin 2000) Ex parte Jerry Gonzales NO. 03-99-00804-CR |
| Decision Date | 02 March 2000 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 94-2930-2, HONORABLE ROBERT F. B. (SKIP) MORSE, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith
Jerry Gonzales applied for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his conviction for driving while intoxicated on the grounds that the evidence used against him was unlawfully seized and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial.1 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.09 (West 1977). Four days later, the county court at law, having "considered the application for writ of habeas corpus . . . and believing that a habeas corpus evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine the merits of the claims raised by applicant," issued an order granting the writ and setting the matter for a hearing.
When the cause was called one month later, counsel for the State urged the court to "deny the application for a writ without a hearing." Counsel noted that the underlying conviction was affirmed by this Court and that petition for discretionary review was refused, then added, "[I]t's the State's position that that mandate was correct, that this Court's decision was correct, the Court of Appeals opinion was correct, and that any further proceedings in this cause are unnecessary and [you] have sufficient basis in the record for denying a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Your Honor." After counsel for Gonzales responded that the ineffectiveness claim had not been raised on appeal, the court announced, "I'm going to deny your writ," adding that it was doing so "[w]ithout a hearing." This appeal followed. See Ex parte Jordan, 659 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).
Gonzales brings forward five points of error, the first of which is that the county court at law erred by refusing to conduct a hearing after granting the application for writ of habeas corpus. The State did not file a brief, but instead filed a motion to dismiss urging that no appeal lies in the absence of a ruling on the merits of Gonzales's habeas corpus application. We will grant the motion.
It is an oft-stated rule that no appeal lies from the refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Noe, 646 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Ex parte Moorehouse, 614 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Ex parte Johnson, 561 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Ex parte Miller, 931 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Tex. App.-Austin 1996, no pet.). This rule was significantly modified by the opinion in Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In that case, the trial court refused to issue a requested writ of habeas corpus in an order that nevertheless addressed the merits of the claims raised in the writ application. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals wrote:
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the trial court did not issue a writ of habeas corpus. However, it erred in concluding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the trial court's order denying relief. This is not a case where the district court simply refused to hear the application as presented. Here, the court went beyond merely deciding not to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The court, in this instance, undertook to rule on the merits of the application.
It is important to recognize that there is a distinction between the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and the granting of relief on the claims set forth in an application for that writ. The trial court in the instant case did not issue the requested writ of habeas corpus. However, he did not dismiss the application either. Instead, the court undertook to rule on the merits of applicant's claim and hence, the court of appeals has jurisdiction over applicant's appeal.
Id. at 869 (footnote omitted). Under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Carbajal, No. 08-03-00297-CR (TX 8/5/2004)
...in this regard is whether the trial court considered and resolved the merits of the writ application. Ex parte Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d 913, 914 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. ref'd). Thus, if the trial court rules on the merits of the applicant's claim but denies the requested relief, that is appe......
-
Ex parte Betancourt, No. 08-05-00063-CR (Tex. App. 7/6/2006)
...substantive merits of Appellant's claims. It cites Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) and Ex parte Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d 913 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. ref'd) in support of its Appellant filed his application pursuant to Article 11.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whi......
-
Ex parte Blakely
...[1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Okere, 56 S.W.3d 846, 850 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Gonzalez, 12 S.W.3d 913, 914 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref'd), superseded in part by statute as discussed in Villanueva v. State, 252 S.W.3d 391, 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)......
-
Ex Parte Pool, 12-01-00208-CR.
...and resolve the merits of the petition. See Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Ex parte Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d 913, 914 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000, pet. ref'd). If the trial court reaches the merits of the habeas corpus application, its ruling is appealable even if it comes......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...right to appeal the trial court’s ruling unless the trial court actually ruled on the merits of the applicant’s claim. Ex parte Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d 913 (Tex.App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref ’ d ). If the trial court declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus but proceeded to rule on the merits of ......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...right to appeal the trial court’s ruling unless the trial court actually ruled on the merits of the applicant’s claim. Ex parte Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d 913 (Tex.App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref ’ d ). If the trial court declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus but proceeded to rule on the merits of ......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...right to appeal the trial court’s ruling unless the trial court actually ruled on the merits of the applicant’s claim. Ex parte Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d 913 (Tex.App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref ’ d ). If the trial court declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus but proceeded to rule on the merits of ......
-
Post-Trial Issues
...right to appeal the trial court’s ruling unless the trial court actually ruled on the merits of the applicant’s claim. Ex parte Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d 913 (Tex.App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref ’ d ). If the trial court declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus but proceeded to rule on the merits of ......