In Re Phillip G. Scott v. the State of Texas

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-26-00092-CV

In re Phillip G. Scott

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. 1 He challenges “the

Magistrate’s order for a pre-revocation warrant a/k/a Blue Warrant issued on Nov. 28, 2025”;

represents that he is being held at the Austin Transitional Center in Del Valle based on the

warrant; and asks for “assistance in finding information on the issuing Judge because Parole has

not given [him his] Violation Report or copy of the Warrant or information supporting

the Warrant.”

Alleged irregularities occurring during the proceedings leading to the revocation

of parole should be brought to the attention of the convicting court by way of a postconviction

application for writ of habeas corpus under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 11.07. See

Board of Pardons & Paroles v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 484

1
Relator titled the document “Notice of Appeal,” but based on the substance of the
document, we have construed it as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He also filed a motion
for extension of time and motion for leave to file late notice of appeal. We dismiss this motion
as moot.
(Tex.Crim.App.1995). The Court of Criminal Appeals enjoys exclusive authority to grant relief

in such a proceeding. Id. Because relator appears to be challenging an irregularity in the

proceedings in the revocation of parole and the Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive

authority to grant relief in such cases, we do not have jurisdiction to grant the relief he requests.

Thus, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over this petition and dismiss

it for want of jurisdiction. 2

__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis

Filed: March 17, 2026

2
To the extent that relator is seeking other relief, we observe that he has not provided
this Court with a sufficient record from which to evaluate his claims. See Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Smith, No. 03-14-00478-CV, 2014 WL 4079922, at *2
(Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 13, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief
when relator failed to provide sufficient record); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (requiring
relator to file record containing sworn copies “of every document that is material to [his] claim
for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”).

2