Opinion
NO. 02-16-00097-CR
04-28-2016
RAYMOND RAY SLAGLE APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 52,797-A MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant Raymond Ray Slagle seeks to appeal from the trial court's denial of his "Motion for an Order to Require the State to Furnish Relevant Records." For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the appeal.
On March 11, 2016, Appellant filed a notice of appeal in this court. On March 16, 2016, we sent Appellant a letter explaining that we were concerned that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. In the letter we informed appellant that if he did not file a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, it could be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); 44.3. Appellant filed his response on March 29, 2016, but it does not provide any grounds for continuing the appeal.
We specifically informed Appellant that this court generally has jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a criminal case only when there has been a judgment of conviction. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). Appellant is not appealing a judgment of conviction.
Appellant's motion requested the state trial court to order the State to produce records, including transcripts, pretrial motions, exhibits, and appellate briefs, for use in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. Section 2254 of the United States Code governs habeas corpus proceedings in federal courts for individuals in state custody. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 2006) (providing that "[t]he Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a [federal] circuit judge, or a [federal] district court" has jurisdiction to entertain a writ of habeas corpus filed by a person in state custody where such custody is in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States). Neither the trial court below nor this court has jurisdiction over federal habeas corpus proceedings. Id.; see also In re Goodwin, No. 01-14-00734-CV, 2014 WL 5500493, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (recognizing that state courts lack jurisdiction to consider § 2254 applications); Pickett v. Slawson, No. 07-09- 00043-CV, 2010 WL 3619557, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 17, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). We therefore dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
Appellant's motion requested an order directing the state to furnish "all relevant records, pursuant to rules governing 2254 cases, Rule 5." --------
PER CURIAM PANEL: SUDDERTH, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: April 28, 2016