Ex parte Walker, 13-90-445-CR

Citation813 S.W.2d 570
Decision Date25 July 1991
Docket NumberNo. 13-90-445-CR,13-90-445-CR
PartiesEx parte Jay Allen WALKER, Applicant.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

Douglas Tinker, Corpus Christi, for applicant.

Grant Jones, Corpus Christi, for appellee.

Before DORSEY, KENNEDY, and SEERDEN, JJ.

OPINION

DORSEY, Justice.

On original submission, we held that an indictment pending against appellant placed him in double jeopardy and ordered the indictment dismissed. Although the State did not file a motion for rehearing, it filed a petition for discretionary review on July 18, 1991. We reconsider our decision pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 101 and now conclude we do not have jurisdiction to hear appellant's complaint in light of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Apolinar, No. 682-90 (Tex.Crim.App. June 19, 1991) (not yet reported). We withdraw our previous opinion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

On November 1, 1990, appellant filed a pleading, entitled "Defendant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Special Plea in Bar," under the cause number of the pending indictment. The record does not show that a writ of habeas corpus was issued. On November 12, the trial court heard evidence and argument and then stated that he "would overrule the special plea and would deny the double jeopardy claim." The case before us is an attempted appeal of that ruling of the trial court.

Whether the action of the trial court is the denial of a plea in bar or was the denial of relief under an application for writ of habeas corpus determines whether we have jurisdiction to review the court's decision.

A special plea may be used to assert a double jeopardy claim under Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. Art. 27.05 (Vernon 1989). If such a plea is asserted under that article, all issues of fact are determined during the trial on the merits, so as to preclude the determination of double jeopardy in advance of trial. Apolinar, Slip Op. at 2; Keller v. State, 760 S.W.2d 816, 817 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1988, no pet.). The denial of a special plea in advance of trial is an interlocutory order and not a final judgment. The courts of appeal have not been granted jurisdiction over this sort of interlocutory order. Apolinar, Slip Op. at 2. Therefore, the special plea procedure authorized by Article 27.05 does not protect a defendant from being put to trial repeatedly for the same offense; its protection goes only to being repeatedly convicted.

Use of the pretrial writ of habeas corpus is the only way to protect a defendant's fifth amendment right against twice being put to trial. Apolinar, Slip Op. at 3. Moreover, a special plea cannot be construed to be a pretrial writ of habeas corpus. Apolinar, Slip Op. at 1-3.

There is nothing in the record showing that the trial court issued a writ of habeas corpus. See Tex.Code...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Lara, 13-94-454-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 16, 1996
    ...use of a pretrial writ of habeas corpus is the only way to protect a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against twice being put to trial. Id. at 571. Justice Dorsey also noted that a special plea cannot be construed to be a pretrial writ of habeas corpus, citing Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d at The i......
  • Ex parte Carter
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • August 19, 1992
    ...After such a hearing, no appeal lies from the refusal to issue the writ. Ex parte Noe, 646 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Walker, 813 S.W.2d at 571; Ex parte Herrera, 750 S.W.2d 923, 925 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1988, no pet.); Sosa v. State, 678 S.W.2d 136, 137 (Tex.App.--San Antoni......
  • In re Shaw
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • October 28, 2005
    ...the hearing and denies the relief sought. Ex parte McCullough, 966 S.W.2d 529, 532 (Tex.Crim.App.1998); Ex parte Walker, 813 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd). The trial court did issue the writ and produced the body. It is not clear, however, that it ruled on the m......
  • Ex parte Bolivar
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 1, 2012
    ...112 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996) (citing Ex parte Moorehouse, 614 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)); see also Ex parte Walker, 813 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991) (dismissing interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction when the trial court did not issue a writ of habeas corp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT