TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00040-CR

Ex parte Curtis Wayne Ratliff

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 1096, HONORABLE SUZANNE BROOKS, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Curtis Wayne Ratliff applied pro se for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to overturn his 1981 misdemeanor conviction for driving while intoxicated. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.09 (West 1977); Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.2d 480, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The court denied the application on the basis of the pleadings and the record. This appeal followed. Although given additional time to do so, Ratliff did not file a brief on appeal.

As a general rule, no appeal lies from the refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d 913, 914 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. ref’d). An exception to this rule exists in cases where the trial court denies the writ in an order addressing the merits of the application. Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d at 914. Although the trial court’s order contained findings regarding the procedural history of the cause, the court did not address the merits of Ratliff’s claims other than to state that he “is manifestly entitled to no relief.” We conclude that we are without appellate jurisdiction. Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d at 914-15.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Bea Ann Smith, Justice Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: July 29, 2004 Do Not Publish