William L. Arnett v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Opinion filed July 25, 2024
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________
No. 11-24-00178-CR
___________
WILLIAM ARNETT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 244th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C-23-0621-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, William Arnett, has filed a pro se notice of appeal that relates to
his pending criminal case in trial court cause no. C-23-0621-CR. In the notice of
appeal, Appellant requests that we “accept the following documents as cause to
proceed” and refers to his handwritten “complaints and assertions” within such
“documents.” We dismiss the appeal.
Appellant’s notice of appeal appears to relate to complaints regarding the
attorneys in the proceedings below, and possibly to a purported pro se application
for writ of habeas corpus. When this appeal was docketed, we notified Appellant
that it did not appear that a final, appealable order had been entered in the trial court.
We requested Appellant’s counsel to respond and show grounds to continue this
appeal. Neither Appellant nor his counsel has filed a response.
An appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal filed by a criminal
defendant from a final judgment of conviction or as otherwise authorized by law.
Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 51–52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Abbott v. State,
271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). As Appellant concedes in the
notice of appeal, the trial court has not ruled on any pending writ of habeas corpus
application. Because the trial court has not entered an appealable order in the
underlying proceeding, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
Moreover, to the extent Appellant requests habeas corpus relief from this
court by this filing, we have no authority to grant the relief he seeks. As a court of
appeals, we do not have original habeas jurisdiction in criminal cases. TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05 (West 2015) (original habeas jurisdiction is limited to
county courts, district courts, and the Court of Criminal Appeals); In re Proctor, No.
11-20-00075-CR, 2020 WL 1181934, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 12, 2020,
orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West Supp. 2023) (limiting original habeas
jurisdiction to civil cases). Therefore, we do not have original habeas jurisdiction to
address Appellant’s claims or to entertain his requests. See CRIM. PROC. art. 11.05;
see In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig.
proceeding) (court of appeals lacked original habeas jurisdiction to address an
2
original proceeding filed in a criminal case that alleged ineffective assistance of
counsel).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE
July 25, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
3