In re Raymond Allen Appeal from 427th District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-21-00138-CV In re Raymond Allen ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Raymond Allen has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus complaining that the trial court has failed to hold a hearing relating to the revocation of his community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.751(d). This Court does not have original habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal cases. See Tex. Const. art. V, § 6 (providing that courts of appeals “shall have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law”); Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221(d) (limiting original habeas-corpus jurisdiction of courts of appeals to situations where relator's liberty is restrained by virtue of order, process, or commitment issued by court or judge in civil case); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.05 (vesting “power to issue the writ of habeas corpus” in “[t]he Court of Criminal Appeals, the District Courts, the County Courts, or any Judge of said Courts”). Our habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters is appellate only. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221(d); see also In re Wilkins, 03-20-00381-CV, 2020 WL 5608486, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 17, 2020, no pet.). To the extent that Allen’s filing can be viewed as a petition for writ of mandamus, we must similarly conclude that he is not entitled to his requested relief. Article 42A.751 only requires a trial court to hold a hearing on the alleged violation of a condition of community supervision within 20 days of the defendant filing a motion requesting the hearing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.751(d). Nothing in the record before us establishes that Allen moved for a hearing under article 42A.751(d), and Allen has failed to provide a petition and record that are sufficient to establish his right to the requested relief. See In re Hill, 03-20-00480-CV, 2020 WL 6265524, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 23, 2020, no pet.) (explaining that the petitioner has the burden of providing this Court “with a sufficient petition and record to establish his right to mandamus relief”); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(a) (requiring a relator to file a record containing sworn copies “of every document that is material to [his] claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”).1 Allen has therefore failed to demonstrate he seeks a ministerial act, as required for mandamus relief in a criminal case. See In re State ex rel. Mau, 560 S.W.3d 640, 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). __________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly Filed: April 2, 2021 1 Moreover, we take judicial notice of the fact that the trial court has a revocation setting scheduled for April 12, 2021. 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.
