IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-00-093-CR
EX PARTE RICHARD SCOTT
Original Proceeding
O P I N I O N
Richard Scott filed a pro se application for writ of habeas corpus with this Court asserting that, although he is presently free on bail, he is “being threatened with further detention and restraint of his liberty.”
This Court does not have original habeas jurisdiction in criminal law matters. Ex parte Hearon, 3 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999) (citing Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.), and Sanders v. State, 771 S.W.2d 645, 650 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1989, pet. ref’d)). Accordingly, we dismiss Scott’s habeas application for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Gray
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed March 22, 2000
Do not publish
a new petition alleging subsection Q as a ground for termination based on the two year time period prior to the date of the filing of the new petition and it would not suffer from the retroactivity problem as defined by the majority.
I have dissented from the litany of this Court’s cases discussed in the majority opinion with one exception. I agree that to perform our duty to strictly scrutinize the termination of parental rights, it is necessary to review claims of legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence that were not properly raised in the trial court. See In the Interest of A.P. and I.P., 42 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet. h.). While I am bound by the prior decisions of this Court, because of the recency of those decisions and because motions for rehearing or petitions for review have been filed in several of those cases, I feel it is nevertheless appropriate to note my dissent in this case.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons expressed herein and in the dissents to the opinions relied upon by the majority.
TOM GRAY
Justice
Dissenting opinion delivered and filed July 11, 2001
Publish