In re Norman CrittendenAppeal from 278th District Court of Walker County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-14-00128-CR IN RE NORMAN CRITTENDEN Original Proceeding MEMORANDUM OPINION In this original proceeding, entitled Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition, Relator requests us to order the trial court in his criminal case to enter an order dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction.1 Relator thus actually seeks habeas corpus relief from his underlying felony conviction. The courts of appeals do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. Ex parte Hearon, 3 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App. Waco 1999, orig. proceeding) The petition has numerous procedural deficiencies. It does not include the certification required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). The appendix is not sworn, and there is no record. See id. 52.3(k), 52.7. It lacks proof of service on the Respondent trial judge and on the Walker County District Attorney, a Real-Party-in-Interest. See id. 9.5, 52.2. A copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties to the proceeding and must contain proof of service. Id. 9.5. Because of our disposition and to expedite it, we will implement Rule 2 and suspend these rules. Id. 2. 1 (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)); Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. App. El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we dismiss this original proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.2 REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Petition dismissed Opinion delivered and filed May 29, 2014 Do not publish [OT06] Relator s application for leave to file his petition is dismissed as moot because leave is no longer required to file an original proceeding in an intermediate court of appeals. 2 In re Crittenden Page 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.