in Re: Danny Ray Sowell

NO. 12-14-00311-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
IN RE: §
DANNY RAY SOWELL, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
RELATOR §
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
On October 28, 2014, Relator, Danny Ray Sowell, filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in this court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004); TEX. R. APP. P. 52. In
the petition, Relator alleges that he is illegally restrained because his trial for the offense with
which he is charged is barred by double jeopardy under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution.
We are unable to consider Relator’s petition because our original jurisdiction to entertain
petitions for writ of habeas corpus extends solely to the actions of judges in civil cases. See TEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d). Our habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters is appellate
only, and we may not exercise original jurisdiction. See id.; Ex parte Hearon, 3 S.W.3d 650,
650 (Tex. App.–Waco 1999, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we dismiss Relator’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction.
Opinion delivered October 30, 2014.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
OCTOBER 30, 2014
NO. 12-14-00311-CR
DANNY RAY SOWELL,
Relator
V.
HON. RANDAL L. MCDONALD,
Respondent
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus and
petition for writ of prohibition filed by DANNY RAY SOWELL, who is the relator in Cause No.
2013-00136, pending on the docket of the County Court at Law of Van Zandt County, Texas.
Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on October 28, 2014, and the same
having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that a writ of mandamus
should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said
petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.