Ex Parte David Wayne Underwood

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00239-CR
EX PARTE DAVID WAYNE UNDERWOOD
From the 18th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. F47362
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a document received on July 21, 2017 and filed on July 25, 2017, David Wayne
Underwood asks us to dismiss three counts of an indictment relating to offenses of
delivery of a controlled substance in case number F47362 from a district court in Johnson
County because the State failed to take action in accordance with the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA). Underwood contends that he invoked the IADA
in 2015 and that the State has yet to try him on these counts.
We are a court of appeals. As such, we have original and appellate jurisdiction
only as authorized by law. See TEX. CONST. art. V § 6. By requesting a dismissal of his
indictment pursuant to the IADA, Underwood appears to be attempting to invoke our
original jurisdiction.1
We have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, see TEX. GOV’T CODE
ANN. § 22.221(b), and writs of habeas corpus where an individual is confined due to a
violation of an order made in a civil case. Id. (d). Underwood is not requesting that we
mandamus the trial court and has not alleged that he is being confined in a civil case.
Further, we do not have original jurisdiction of any writs of habeas corpus in criminal
cases. See Ramirez v. State, 36 S.W.3d 660, 664 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. ref'd).
We reiterate that original jurisdiction is only as authorized by law. TEX. CONST.
art. V § 6. We know of no law, and Underwood has not cited or directed us to any, that
gives us original jurisdiction to grant a motion to dismiss an indictment pending in the
trial court.
Accordingly, this original proceeding is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Petition dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed August 2, 2017
Do not publish
[OT06]
1
We note that the document was not properly served on the opposing parties. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5.
However, we use Rule 2 to proceed to a timely disposition of Underwood’s request.
Ex parte Underwood Page 2