in Re Fred Gonzales ( 2023 )

Opinion filed February 9, 2023
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-23-00017-CR
__________
IN RE FRED GONZALES
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Fred Gonzales, has filed this original proceeding pro se. According
to Relator, he has been charged with aggravated assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 22.02 (West Supp. 2022). Relator states that the 91st District Court of Eastland
County has issued an “order of incompetence” in his case on December 9, 2021. See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.005 (West 2018). In his petition, Relator
requests this court to provide him with various forms of relief based on alleged
violations of his rights by his defense attorney, the district court, the district clerk,
the jail, and a visitor at the jail “who does competency restoration.” We dismiss the
proceeding.
This court has no jurisdiction over this original proceeding, which Relator
calls a petition for discretionary review. This court’s authority to exercise original
jurisdiction is limited. See TEX. CONST. art. V, §§ 5, 6 (providing that the Court of
Criminal Appeals has the power to issue writs of habeas corpus and that intermediate
courts of appeals only have original jurisdiction as prescribed by law); TEX. GOV’T
CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2022) (limited writ powers granted to the courts
of appeals). As an intermediate appellate court, we have no authority to order the
jail to provide Relator with additional postage or envelopes, allow him to have his
own cell or be placed in segregation, allow him to become a trustee of the jail, or
allow him more “privileges” such as a television. We also have no authority to direct
his defense attorney, the district clerk, or a jail visitor to act. See GOV’T CODE
§ 22.221(a), (d).
Moreover, we have no authority to order his pending “felony case dismissed
and expunged from [his] record.” To the extent Relator requests release from
custody, we do not have original habeas jurisdiction to entertain such a request. See
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) (courts of appeals do not have original habeas jurisdiction in criminal
cases); see also GOV’T CODE § 22.221(d) (limiting original habeas jurisdiction to
civil cases); CRIM. PROC. art. 11.05 (West 2015) (original habeas jurisdiction is
limited to county courts, district courts, and the Court of Criminal Appeals).
We note that the allegations against the district court appear to be related to
an “incompetency order” issued by the judge. The document Appellant refers to is
not in the record for our review. To the extent Appellant attempts to appeal a finding
of incompetence, we also lack jurisdiction to address such an appeal. See CRIM.
PROC. art. 46B.011; In re Commitment of V.S., No. 11-21-00198-CV, 2022 WL
120785, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Jan. 13, 2022) (mem. op., not designated for
2
publication) (courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to conduct an interlocutory review
of a trial court’s findings of incompetence to stand trial); see also Ragston v. State,
424 S.W.3d 49, 51 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (courts of appeals only have jurisdiction
to review interlocutory orders expressly granted by law); McKown v. State, 915
S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (noting limited jurisdiction
to consider pretrial orders in criminal cases).
We dismiss this original proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
February 9, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
3