in Re Glenn Edward Champagne ( 2012 )

NUMBER 13-12-00409-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE GLENN EDWARD CHAMPAGNE
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Glenn Edward Champagne, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on
June 22, 2012, through which he appears to be complaining of allegedly illegal
confinement.2 We dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus as stated herein.
1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2
This Court has previously considered a direct appeal and several original proceedings filed by
relator. See Champagne v. State, No. 13-11-00657-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS ___, at *__ (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi June 28, 2012, no pet. h.) (mem. op. not designated for publication); In re Champagne,
Nos. 13-12-00108-CR, 13-12-00109-CR, & 13-12-00110-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 1291, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 10, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam, not designated for
publication); In re Champagne, Nos. 13-12-00085-CR, 13-12-00086-CR & 13-12-00087-CR, 2012 Tex.
A relator is not entitled to habeas corpus relief unless he was deprived of his
liberty without due process of law or if the judgment ordering him confined is void. See
In re Alexander, 243 S.W.3d 822, 824 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, orig. proceeding).
The purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is not to determine the ultimate guilt or
innocence of the relator, but to ascertain if the relator has been unlawfully confined. Ex
parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex. 1979); Alexander, 243 S.W.3d at 827.
This Court's original jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus relief derives from section
22.221(d) of the Texas Government Code, which provides, in relevant part:
Concurrently with the supreme court, the court of appeals of a court of
appeals district in which a person is restrained in his liberty, or a justice of
the court of appeals, may issue a writ of habeas corpus when it appears
that the restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment
issued by a court or judge because of the violation of an order, judgment,
or decree previously made, rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a
civil case.
TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). Thus, this Court has no original
habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See id.; Ex parte Price, 228 S.W.3d
885, 886 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.); Chavez v. State, 132 S.W.3d 509, 510 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo 2002, pet. ref'd); Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. App.—El
Paso 1994, no pet.); see also In re Walker, Nos. 05-11-01612-CV, 05-11-01613-CV &
05-11-01614-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9513, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 6, 2011,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). In such cases, our jurisdiction is appellate only. See
App. LEXIS 1136, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 6, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam,
not designated for publication); In re Champagne, Nos. 13-12-00014-CR, 13-12-00015-CR & 13-12-
00016-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 453, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 17, 2012, orig. proceeding)
(mem. op. per curiam, not designated for publication).
2
Dodson, 988 S.W.2d at 835. In criminal matters, the courts authorized to issue writs of
habeas corpus are the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the
county courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05 (West 2005).
Moreover, relator’s complaints in this matter arise from trial court cause number
D-100390-R in the 260th District Court of Orange County, Texas. Relator has not
established in this original proceeding that this Court has jurisdiction over matters
arising from Orange County. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b), (d) (West 2004);
id. § 22.201(n) (West Supp. 2011).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of habeas
corpus, is of the opinion that we are without jurisdiction to consider the matters raised
herein. Therefore, we dismiss this petition for writ of habeas for lack of jurisdiction
without reference to the merits.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
5th day of July, 2012.
3