concluding that a felony habeas applicant who could not proceed under pre-1995 Article 11.07, because not “confined,” could nevertheless pursue an original writ application, just as do habeas applicants challenging misdemeanor convictions who can identify collateral consequences amounting to restraint
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a felony habeas applicant who could not proceed under pre-1995 Article 11.07, because not “confined,” could nevertheless pursue an original writ application, just as do habeas applicants challenging misdemeanor convictions who can identify collateral consequences amounting to restraint
- holding that a person who is not confined but is suffering some collateral consequence as a result of a final felony conviction may seek habeas corpus relief from the district court pursuant to article V, section 8 of the Texas Constitution
- dismissing an application regarding community supervision brought under art. 11.07 for failing to comply with jurisdictional requisites to granting relief, that is, "a final felony conviction"
- ”[c]onfinement” means “in custody” for purposes of a writ of habeas corpus filed under art. 11.07; only a prisoner who was in actual, physical custody of state official could file post-conviction writ; other methods available for filing a writ when person was “restrained" but not in actual custody
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ONION, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
Our original opinion in this cause concluded the application for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07, Y.A.C.C.P., was improvidently granted. That action was correct. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to felony theft, and was placed on probation. There was no final conviction. Subsequently his probation was terminated, the judgment of conviction was set aside and the indictment was dismissed. See Article 42.12, V.A.C.C.P. Article 11.07, supra, applies only to final felony convictions. This Court is thus without jurisdiction. On this basis I would concur in the result reached by the majority. I would not engage in a discussion of “confinement,” “restraint,” etc., necessary under Article 11.07, supra, when the matter before us is not properly here under Article 11.07, supra.