In Re A. L.C. v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Opinion issued December 21, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-23-00907-CV
———————————
IN RE A.L.C., Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A.L.C. has filed a letter that we treat as a pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus1 related to his juvenile adjudication that occurred in 2019 for aggravated
1
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (pro se complaint “is to be liberally
construed”); Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 426–27 (5th Cir. 2011) (filings by
habeas petitioners are “entitled to the benefit of liberal construction”; “[i]t is the
substance of the relief sought by a pro se pleading, not the label that the petitioner
has attached to it, that determines the true nature and operative effect of a habeas
filing”).
1
sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. On March 2, 2023, the juvenile
court signed a judgment confining A.L.C. to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department
for an indeterminate period not to extend past his 19th birthday or until his discharge.
A.L.C. appealed, and we dismissed the appeal because it was untimely. In re A.L.C.,
No. 01-23-00320-CV, 2023 WL 7029560, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Oct. 26, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam).2
In his petition, A.L.C. asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
from trial counsel and that is also why he failed to timely appeal the juvenile court’s
judgment; that the guardian ad litem was unwilling to assist him in his appeal; and
that the juvenile court failed to modify his disposition to allow him to complete his
required treatment without losing credit for what he had completed.
To obtain any relief, A.L.C must file his petition for writ of habeas corpus
with the juvenile court so that it may evaluate his petition. See In re Dorsey, 465
S.W.3d 656, 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (Richardson, J., concurring) (pro se
complaint in juvenile proceeding may be raised by a writ of habeas corpus but must
be done “through the juvenile justice system”); In re Hall, 286 S.W.3d 925, 927
(Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over
proceedings involving delinquent conduct, which continues after the child reaches
2
The underlying case is In re A.L.C., Cause No. 2020-01085J, from the 315th District
Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Leah Shapiro presiding.
2
the age of majority); see also TEX. CONST. art. V, § 8 (district court judges “have the
power to issue writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction”); TEX. FAM. CODE
§ 56.01(o) (Juvenile Justice Code does not limit a juvenile’s right to obtain a writ of
habeas corpus). We note that A.L.C. may not seek a writ of habeas corpus through
Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure because juvenile proceedings
are civil. See Hall, 286 S.W.3d at 927 (although quasi-criminal, juvenile proceedings
are civil cases, so the Texas Supreme Court, “rather than the Court of Criminal
Appeals, is the Texas court of last resort”).
Because A.L.C. has not filed an petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
juvenile court and received a determination, we lack jurisdiction to consider his
current petition. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(d) (limited writ powers granted to
the courts of appeals); see also Ex parte Valle, 104 S.W.3d 888, 890 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2003) (noting that the Texas Constitution gives the district court the power to
issue writs of habeas corpus and noticing that appellate courts have entertained
appeals from the outcome of a juvenile’s habeas proceeding); see, e.g., In re P.L.M.,
No. 01-11-00157-CV, 2011 WL 1234740, at *1 (Tex. App .—Houston [1st Dist.]
Mar. 31, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem.op.) (per curiam) (this Court does not have
original habeas jurisdiction over such matters). But A.L.C. is not precluded from
filing an petition for writ of habeas corpus under Article V, Section 8 of the Texas
Constitution with the 315th District Court of Harris County. If the district court does
3
not respond, then he may seek relief by filing an petition for writ of mandamus from
the appropriate intermediate appellate court. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a).
Conclusion
Without expressing an opinion on the substance of A.L.C.’s petition for writ
of habeas corpus, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.
Sarah Beth Landau
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas-Molloy.
4