NUMBER 13-20-00024-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN RE ROBERT LAWRENCE DANE
____________________________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1
Relator Robert Lawrence Dane filed a request for leave to file an application for
writ of habeas corpus and an emergency application for habeas corpus relief in the above
cause on January 21, 2020.2 Relator contends that he is illegally incarcerated in Victoria
County, Texas, as the result of a “[f]raudulently filed” claim of stalking, a third-degree
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions); id. R. 52.8(d)
(“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “denying relief,
the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”).
2 This original proceeding was filed on behalf of Robert Lawrence Dane by Samantha Gonzales, a
non-lawyer, pursuant to articles 11.12 and 11.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.12 (“Either the party for whose relief the writ is intended, or any person for him,
may present a petition to the proper authority for the purpose of obtaining relief.”); id. art. 11.13 (“The word
applicant, as used in this Chapter, refers to the person for whose relief the writ is asked, though the petition
may be signed and presented by any other person.”).
felony offense, based on a detainer issued by DeWitt County, Texas. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 42.072 (stating that a person engages in the offense of stalking by engaging
in certain specified, proscribed conduct). We dismiss this original proceeding for lack of
jurisdiction.
“Texas courts of appeals only have habeas jurisdiction in situations where a
relator’s restraint of liberty arises from a violation of an order, judgment, or decree
previously made by a court or judge in a civil case.” In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364
n.3 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); see In re Spriggs, 528 S.W.3d 234, 236 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2017, orig. proceeding). Thus, courts of appeals do not have original habeas
corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d); In re
Spriggs, 528 S.W.3d at 236; In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356, 356 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding). The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure vests original
jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or a judge in those courts. See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05; In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 356. Therefore, this
Court is without jurisdiction to consider relator’s application for habeas corpus relief. See
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d); see also In re Jones, No. 01-19-00959-CR, 2019 WL
6905809, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op. per curiam, not designated for publication); In re Frilot, No. 03-19-00118-CV, 2019
WL 2237889, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin May 24, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not
designated for publication).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the request for leave to file the
application and the application for writ of habeas corpus, is of the opinion that we lack
2
jurisdiction over the relief sought. Accordingly, we dismiss this original proceeding, and
all relief sought therein, for lack of jurisdiction.
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
21st day of January, 2020.
3