# Ex Parte Renier

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · July 1, 1987 · 734 S.W.2d 349

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771809

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Michael John RENIER
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** July 1, 1987
- **Citations:** 734 S.W.2d 349; 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 742
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Onion
- **Judges:** Clinton, Onion, Teague
- **Cited by:** 116 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771809

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 consequenc…
- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771809. Public record. Not legal advice.