Summary
holding court of appeals had no jurisdiction over denial of "shock probation" or alternative request for habeas corpus relief
Summary of this case from Smith v. StateOpinion
Nos. 04-98-01032-CR, 04-98-01033-CR.
March 17, 1999.
Appeal from the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court Nos. 97-CR-1991-B 97-CR-1992, Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding.
APPEALS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
Mario A. Trevino for Appellant.
Susan D. Reed, Criminal District Attorney, for Appellee.
Sitting: PHIL HARDBERGER, Chief Justice, PAUL W. GREEN, Justice, SARAH B. DUNCAN, Justice.
OPINION
Juan Zepeda appeals the denial of "shock probation," for which we have no jurisdiction. Houlihan v. State, 579 S.W.2d 213, 216 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979); see also Perez v. State, 938 S.W.2d 761, 762 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, pet. ref'd) (finding no jurisdiction over order granting shock probation). Zepeda invites us to construe his appeals as writs of habeas corpus, as the Court of Criminal Appeals did in Houlihan. See 579 S.W.2d at 216-17. We decline to do so because, unlike the Court of Criminal Appeals, we do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. See In re S.G., Jr., 935 S.W.2d 919, 922 n. 1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, writ dism'd w.o.j.). Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
We also note the trial court granted Zepeda permission to appeal. This permission, however, does not confer jurisdiction on us. Cf. State v. Roberts, 940 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (holding that agreement cannot create jurisdiction in the absence of constitutional or statutory authority).