The Texas Court of Appeals has dismissed a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Lee Edwardo Collins, Jr., citing a lack of jurisdiction. This decision affects Collins, who sought release from custody, and highlights the jurisdictional limits of intermediate appellate courts in Texas regarding criminal law matters.

On October 19, 2026, Collins filed his petition in the Fourth Court of Appeals, seeking relief from his detention. However, the court ruled that it does not have the authority to hear original habeas corpus petitions in criminal cases. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the boundaries of the court's jurisdiction and the proper channels for individuals seeking relief from custody in Texas.

Background

Lee Edwardo Collins, Jr. is the petitioner in this case, seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his detention. The State of Texas is the respondent in this matter. The case originated in the 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, under Cause No. 2025-CR-002213, presided over by Judge Michael E. Mery.

The dispute arose when Collins believed his detention was unlawful and sought to contest it through a habeas corpus petition. This type of petition is a legal mechanism that allows individuals to challenge the legality of their detention or imprisonment. However, the court filing did not provide details about the specific reasons for Collins's petition or the circumstances surrounding his custody.

The case reached the Texas Court of Appeals after Collins filed his petition on October 19, 2026. The court's role was to review the petition and determine whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the case. As an intermediate appellate court, its jurisdiction is limited, particularly in matters of original habeas corpus petitions.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Collins's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court stated, "As an intermediate court of appeals, we do not have original habeas jurisdiction in criminal law matters." The ruling emphasized that the jurisdiction to hear such petitions is reserved for specific courts, including the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, and county courts.

The court referenced relevant Texas statutes, including the Texas Government Code and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, to support its decision. Specifically, it cited TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d), which limits the original habeas jurisdiction of appellate courts to civil cases. The court also mentioned TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05, which grants exclusive jurisdiction for original habeas corpus petitions in criminal matters to other specified courts.

In conclusion, the court dismissed Collins's petition for want of jurisdiction, stating, "Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over this matter and dismiss this original proceeding for want of jurisdiction." The ruling was delivered by a panel of justices, including Lori I. Valenzuela, Lori Massey Brissette, and Adrian A. Spears II.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking to file habeas corpus petitions in Texas. It reinforces the understanding that intermediate appellate courts do not have the authority to hear original habeas corpus petitions in criminal cases. Instead, individuals must file such petitions in the appropriate courts, such as the Court of Criminal Appeals or district courts.

The decision may also affect how future habeas corpus petitions are filed in Texas. Individuals seeking relief from custody must ensure they are directing their petitions to the correct court to avoid dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding the legal framework and jurisdictional boundaries in the Texas judicial system.

What's Next

Collins's case cannot be appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals due to the jurisdictional limitations outlined in the ruling. However, he may still have the option to file his habeas corpus petition in the appropriate court, such as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals or a district court, if he chooses to pursue further legal action.