Nathan Andrew Kniatt v. State ( 2005 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-00199-CR

Nathan Andrew Kniatt,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court # 25704CR

DISSENTING Opinion

          Any way you approach it, this is now a collateral attack on a conviction rendered pursuant to a plea bargain.  Kniatt cannot appeal the plea, so the Court is coming through the back-door to allow what cannot come in through the front-door.

          Yes, because the trial court determined the merits of Kniatt’s application, we had jurisdiction to review the pre-trial habeas corpus.  Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868-869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). But when the trial court heard and accepted the plea and rendered its judgment, our jurisdiction to review the habeas terminated.  Saucedo v. State, 795 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14^th Dist.] 1990, no pet.); Budd v. State, No. 07-97-0054-CR, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 7033, *5-6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 10, 1998, no pet.) (not designated for publication); see also Ex parte Branch, 553 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).  I would dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  Because the Court does not, I dissent.

                                                                   TOM GRAY

                                                                   Chief Justice

Dissenting opinion delivered and filed January 5, 2005

Publish