Ex Parte Artemio Gomez ( 2016 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-16-00196-CR
EX PARTE ARTEMIO GOMEZ
On Appeal from the 106th District Court
Lynn County, Texas
Trial Court No. 16-04-07292, Honorable Carter T. Schildknecht, Presiding
October 20, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant, Artemio Gomez, appeals the dismissal of his writ of habeas corpus
application by the district court. The district court dismissed the application, citing a lack
of jurisdiction. Appellant appeals that decision. Finding that the district court had
jurisdiction over the application for writ of habeas corpus, we reverse and remand for a
hearing on the merits of the application.
Factual and Procedural Background
Appellant contends that he was arrested on November 25, 2015, for the
misdemeanor offense of terroristic threat. Further, appellant contends that the alleged
incident did not occur in the presence of the arresting officer and that his arrest was
effectuated without the benefit of an arrest warrant. Next, appellant contends that he
was released from jail the following day on a personal recognizance bond, as set by the
municipal judge. The next business day, appellant contends that he went to the county
attorney who advised appellant that he had been released on a personal recognizance
bond because the charges were filed in the wrong court. The county attorney further
advised appellant that charges could be filed any time within the following two years.
After attempting to have the charge dismissed on the basis of a motion filed in the
county court, appellant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus with the district
court. The district judge set appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus for a
hearing and, following arguments by the district attorney’s office, dismissed the
application for want of jurisdiction. Appellant appeals the trial court’s actions in
dismissing the application for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. We will
reverse and remand the case back to the trial court to conduct a hearing on the merits
of appellant’s writ.
Analysis
The record before the Court consists of the arguments made by the district
attorney’s representative that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear appellant’s
application for writ of habeas corpus. According to the record, the State argued that the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure vested jurisdiction in the county court to hear writs of
habeas corpus on misdemeanor matters. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.09
(West 2015).1 Article 11.09 provides, in relevant part, “If a person is confined on a
charge of misdemeanor, he may apply to the county judge of the county in which the
1
Further reference to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will be by reference to “Article
____,” “article ____,” or “art. ____.”
2
misdemeanor is charged to have been committed.” Art. 11.09. According to the State,
this means that the county judge has exclusive jurisdiction over appellant’s application
for writ. Further, the State contends that this grant of jurisdiction to the county judge
operates to deny jurisdiction over the application to the district court.
This analysis ignores the fact that appellant’s application for the writ of habeas
corpus explicitly states that it is being brought under Article 11.05. See art. 11.05 (West
2015). Article 11.05 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Court of Criminal Appeals, the
District Courts, the County Courts, or any Judge of said courts, have power to issue the
writ of habeas corpus.” Art. 11.05. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that
Article 11.05 entitles a district court to hear writs of habeas corpus on misdemeanors.
See State ex rel. Rodriguez v. Onion, 741 S.W.2d 433, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (en
banc). Likewise, the Fourth Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion. See Ex
parte Haight, No. 04-00-00696-CR, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 4876, at *2 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio July 25, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication).
Conclusion
Therefore, we hold that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the merits of
appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. We sustain appellant’s issue and
remand to the district court for a hearing on the merits of appellant’s application for writ
of habeas corpus.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
3