Ex Parte Priscilla Zitek Braswell, 630 S.W.3d 600

Priscilla Zitek Braswell filed an original application for a writ of habeas corpus with the Tenth Court of Appeals seeking release from confinement because she alleges the pretrial bail set is unaffordable following a vehicle collision and a blood draw.
The Tenth Court of Appeals treated the filing as an original pretrial habeas application rather than an appeal from a trial-court ruling.
The court explained that, under Texas law and the Texas Constitution, original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters is vested in the Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, county courts, or judges of those courts—not in courts of appeals.
The courts of appeals’ original habeas jurisdiction is limited to civil cases where liberty is restrained by violation of a civil order, judgment, or decree.
Because Braswell sought criminal pretrial habeas relief in the court of appeals, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.
Opinion delivered July 7, 2021 by Chief Justice Tom Gray (panel included Justices Johnson and Davis presiding by assignment).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Tenth Court of Appeals has original habeas-corpus jurisdiction to grant pretrial relief in a criminal matter	Braswell: court should grant habeas relief because bail is set at an amount she cannot afford	Court/State: courts of appeals lack original habeas jurisdiction in criminal cases; jurisdiction lies with district courts, county courts, or the Court of Criminal Appeals	The Tenth Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear an original pretrial criminal habeas application; application dismissed
Whether Braswell’s filing was procedurally proper as an original application to a court of appeals	Braswell filed directly with the court of appeals seeking immediate relief	The appropriate procedure is to seek habeas relief in a district or county court or ultimately the Court of Criminal Appeals; courts of appeals only have original habeas jurisdiction in specified civil circumstances	Braswell may pursue relief in a court with proper jurisdiction (e.g., district court or Court of Criminal Appeals), but not in this court of appeals

Kim v. State, 181 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005) (courts of appeals lack original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters)
Ex parte Martinez, 175 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Texarkana) (orig. proceeding) (same principle regarding limits on courts of appeals)
Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994) (orig. proceeding) (confirms courts of appeals cannot grant original criminal habeas relief)
In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (clarifies courts of appeals’ original habeas jurisdiction is limited to civil cases involving restraint for violation of a civil order)
Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals, Eighth Supreme Judicial Dist., 769 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (discusses procedure for seeking habeas relief in district courts and appellate review)
Ex parte Renier, 734 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (procedural context for district-court habeas jurisdiction and appellate review)