Ex Parte Earnest Lee Glover

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-21-00080-CV
Ex parte Earnest Lee Glover, Appellant
FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. D-1-GN-19-008912, THE HONORABLE MARIA CANTÚ HEXSEL, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In December 2019, Earnest Lee Glover filed a petition for original habeas corpus
with the trial court. Glover styled his petition as a civil lawsuit, naming Lorie Davis as
defendant, but he sought habeas relief, to have his judgment of conviction set aside and to be
released from custody. 1 Glover filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order granting
Davis’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On July 15, 2021, this Court informed Glover that it appeared that this Court
lacked jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 (setting forth
procedure for writ of habeas corpus); In re Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 819, 822 n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin
2012, no pet.) (“Courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over criminal-law matters pertaining to
proceedings under article 11.07.”); Ex parte Williams, 239 S.W.3d 859, 862 (Tex. App.—Austin
1 According to offender information details attached to the plea to the jurisdiction before
the trial court, Glover was sentenced in 2007 to two counts of aggravated sexual assault and is
serving sentences of confinement for ninety-nine years.
2007, no pet.). 2 This Court also directed him to file a response on or before July 26, 2021,
explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. To date, appellant has not
filed a response. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.
P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: December 22, 2021
2 See also McClure v. State, No. 03-13-00226-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7184, at *1–2
(Tex. App.—Austin June 13, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“The
intermediate courts of appeal have no role in criminal law matters pertaining to proceedings
initiated under article 11.07.”)
2