in Re Jonathan Abram ( 2020 )

Opinion issued January 14, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00859-CR
———————————
IN RE JONATHAN ABRAM, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Jonathan Abram, has filed a petition for “Writ of Habeas Corpus to
Set Aside, Vacate, Dismiss and Expunge the Indictment, and Release,” contending
that the indictment “does not state sufficient facts to constitute an offense against
the laws of the State of Texas.”1 For the reasons explained below, we dismiss the
petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction.2
In his petition, Relator asserts:
• “The indictment clearly fails to set forth enough sufficient facts that would
apprise Defendant or put the Defendant on notice of committing, which acts,
facts or circumstances . . . would render him guilty in order that the
Defendant’s rights not be prejudiced. . .”;
• “The indictment wholly fails to allege on its face which Penal Code is
charged to enable Defendant to ‘knowingly and intelligently’ plead to the
indictment so that a judgment would become a bar to subsequent prosecution
for the same. . .”;
• “The indictment nowhere states the indictment was presented to the District
Court of the county where the Grand Jury was in session. The docket is the
only record of what happened in a criminal proceeding. . . No such record
exists of an ‘open court’ presentation. No indictment exists as a matter of
law.”;
• “No evidence exists” in light of article 38.17 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure; and
• “[N]ew evidence [came] to light to support this issue and indictment could
never be proven.”
1
The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Jonathan Abram, cause number
1572078, pending in the 178th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the
Honorable Kelli Johnson presiding.
2
No record was filed with the petition. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k)
requires all original proceedings to be filed with an appendix that contains, inter
alia, “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document
showing the matter complained of.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k).
2
Relator asks for this Court to “set aside, vacate, dismiss and order expungement of
the indictment” and to order relator’s “immediate release and discharge . . . from
prosecution and confinement.”
This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in civil contempt
cases. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(d). In criminal matters, our habeas corpus
jurisdiction is appellate only, and we do not have original habeas corpus
jurisdiction. Ex parte Denby, 627 S.W.2d 435, 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1981, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see also Chavez v. State, 132 S.W.3d
509, 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (citing TEX. GOV’T CODE
§ 22.221) (“A court of appeals does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in
felony cases.”).
If the trial court had denied habeas relief to Relator after a hearing, this
Court would have jurisdiction over the appeal from that denial. Ex parte Twyman,
716 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). We lack jurisdiction over this
attempt to seek pre-conviction habeas relief directly from this Court. In re Lozano,
No. 14–12–00049–CR, 2012 WL 274076, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
Jan. 31, 2012, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“[T]o the degree relator seeks
release from custody, relator is seeking pretrial habeas corpus relief over which
this court does not have jurisdiction.”) (citing Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802
S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).
3
We therefore dismiss Relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus for want
of jurisdiction. All pending motions filed in connection with this original
proceeding are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Countiss.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4