In re Jesus Espinoza--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
i i i i i i MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00570-CR IN RE Jesus ESPINOZA Original Mandamus Proceeding1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 27, 2008 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED; APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On August 4, 2008, Espinoza filed pro se original petitions requesting the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of mandamus. Espinoza chiefly complains of the trial court s refusal to set his case for trial. Espinoza is represented by counsel in the trial court. Because Espinoza s complaints relate to his pending criminal case, we conclude that trial counsel is Espinoza s counsel for any mandamus proceeding on the issues presented. Espinoza has no right to proceed pro se and be represented by counsel at the same time. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CR-9689, styled The State of Texas v. Jesus Espinoza, pending in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl presiding. 04-08-00570-CR proceeding). Thus, Espinoza s mandamus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court s review. Additionally, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the county courts are authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus in criminal matters. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PRO . ANN . art. 11.05 (Vernon 2005). However, this court has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. See Watson v. State, 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2002, pet. ref d); Ex parte Hearon, 3 S.W.3d 650, 650 (Tex. App. Waco 1999, orig. proceeding); Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1999, no pet.). Accordingly, the mandamus petition is denied and the habeas corpus petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.