IN RE: DAVID GEORGE BAUGH,

RELATOR

David George Baugh has been charged with failure to identify, a violation of Texas Penal Code section 38.02(a), and is presently confined in the Cherokee County Jail. In this original proceeding, he seeks a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, a writ of prohibition preventing his prosecution from proceeding, discharging him from the Cherokee County Jail, and dismissing the case with prejudice. ⁽¹⁾ In substance, Baugh seeks pretrial habeas relief. See Ex parte Caldwell, 58 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (holding that the substance, and not the title governs when interpreting a document). Therefore, we construe the filed document as an application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus.

The Texas Government Code provides as follows:

Concurrently with the supreme court, the court of appeals of a court of appeals district in which a person is restrained in his liberty, or a justice of the court of appeals, may issue a writ of habeas corpus when it appears that the restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a court or judge because of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a civil case. Pending the hearing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the court of appeals or a justice of the court of appeals may admit to bail a person to whom the writ of habeas corpus may be granted.

Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(d) (Vernon 2004). Thus, the original jurisdiction of courts of appeals to issue a writ of habeas corpus is limited to those cases in which a person's liberty is restrained because the person has violated an order, judgment, or decree entered in a civil case. Id. Consequently, courts of appeals do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1994, no pet.). In such matters, their jurisdiction is appellate only. Dodson, 988 S.W.2d at 835. Because Baugh seeks habeas relief in a criminal proceeding, we are without jurisdiction to consider his application. Accordingly, we dismiss Baugh's application for want of jurisdiction. ⁽²⁾

Opinion delivered June 17, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.