eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2006-04

Ex Parte Craig Gloude ( 2006 )


Menu:

  • In The



    Court of Appeals



    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



    ____________________



    NO. 09-06-120 CR

    ____________________



    EX PARTE CRAIG GLOUDE



    On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

    Jefferson County, Texas

    Trial Cause No. 2091 (95476)



    MEMORANDUM OPINION

    On March 6, 2006, the trial court denied Craig Gloude's application for writ of habeas corpus without conducting an evidentiary hearing or issuing the writ of habeas corpus. We questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. Gloude filed a response in which he contends the trial court heard his complaints regarding ineffective assistance of counsel in an unrecorded hearing on January 30, 2006. The application for issuance of a pre-trial writ of habeas corpus was filed February 28, 2006, so a hearing conducted in January could not have been triggered by his application.



    No appeal lies from the refusal to issue writ of habeas corpus unless the trial court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the application. Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Noe v. State, 646 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In this case, the trial court did not address the merits of the appellant's petition. The trial court did not issue a writ of habeas corpus, nor did the court conduct an evidentiary hearing on the application for the writ. Compare Ex parte Silva, 968 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Ex parte McCullough, 966 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). (1) We hold we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

    APPEAL DISMISSED.



    ____________________________

    STEVE McKEITHEN

    Chief Justice





    Opinion Delivered April 26, 2006

    Do Not Publish

    Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

    1.

    A pre-trial determination of ineffectiveness of counsel would not entitle Gloude to immediate release and therefore would not be cognizable in a pre-trial writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).