in Re Dallas James Moore ( 2019 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-19-00239-CR
No. 07-19-00240-CR
________________________
IN RE DALLAS JAMES MOORE
Original Proceeding Arising Out Of Proceedings
Before the 320th District Court Of Potter County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 72,940-D & 72,941-D; Honorable Pamela C. Sirmon, Presiding
July 3, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Dallas James Moore, proceeding pro se, has filed a document entitled
“Affidavit/Declaration” by which he seeks a pretrial release from incarceration and claims
that his right to a speedy trial in trial court cause numbers 72,940-D and 72,941-D has
been violated.1 Although inartfully drafted, we construe his filing as a pretrial application
1 Attached to his document is a copy of a transcript from a hearing held on April 28, 2017, on his
then-court-appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw based on Mr. Moore’s communication with the State Bar
of Texas. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court continued appointed counsel’s representation of
Mr. Moore.
for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends he is being illegally detained in the Potter County
Detention Center and that he should have been released on personal recognizance
bonds in the pending cases.
APPLICABLE LAW
Intermediate appellate courts have authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to
persons restrained in the courts’ respective districts by virtue of a court order in a civil
case. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West Supp. 2018). Intermediate appellate
courts do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See
Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d). Instead,
habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal proceedings rests with the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals, the district courts, and the county courts. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05
(West 2015).
CONCLUSION
Mr. Moore’s allegation that he is being illegally detained arises from criminal
proceedings. Consequently, we dismiss his application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus
for want of jurisdiction.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2