MURPHY, JEDIDIAH MURPHY v. the State of Texas

In the Court of Criminal
Appeals of Texas
══════════
No. AP-77,116
══════════

EX PARTE JEDIDIAH ISAAC MURPHY, Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════
On Direct Appeal from Denial of Writ of Habeas Corpus Under
Article I, § 12 of the Texas Constitution and Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure Article 11.05 in Cause No. W00-02424-M(D)
From the 194th Judicial District Court of Dallas County
═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Appellant filed what purports to be an original application for the

writ of habeas corpus in the district court. In that pleading, he claimed

his application was authorized by Article I, Section 12, of the Texas

Constitution and by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.05.
MURPHY – 2

TEX. CONST. Art. I, § 12; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.05. Appellant

sought by his pleading to have the district court grant an injunction

against his execution, which is to be implemented by the administration

of certain drugs that Appellant contends the State should be prohibited

from using. The trial court denied relief on the basis that Appellant

failed to meet the threshold burden required by the United States

Supreme Court in Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 877 (2015).

Appellant now seeks to appeal the decision of the district court

denying relief on his application. There is no general constitutional right

to appeal criminal cases. See Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1992). Appellant points to no authority suggesting that he has a

right to appeal the decision of the trial court. As a result, this Court

lacks a sufficient basis to conclude that its appellate jurisdiction has

been properly invoked. Appellant’s attempted appeal should be

dismissed.

Even more importantly, by his purported application for habeas

relief, Appellant sought to have the district court enjoin his execution.

But this Court seems to have previously decided that “any order by

another state court purporting to stay an execution unlawfully

circumvents the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals
MURPHY – 3

in a death-penalty conviction.” Ex parte Alba, 256 S.W.3d 682, 690 n.19

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Cochran, J., concurring) (citing State ex rel.

Holmes v. Third Court of Appeals, 885 S.W.2d 389, 395–96 (Tex. Crim.

App.1994)). Therefore, regardless of the merits of Appellant’s claim, the

district court would have been without authority to grant the relief he

requested.

Perhaps Appellant could have properly litigated his claim by

resort to an application for the writ of mandamus or prohibition in this

Court. But he has not attempted to do that. He has not even filed either:

(1) a subsequent writ pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure Article

11.071; or (2) an original application for the writ of habeas corpus in this

Court, which we might conceivably have treated as an attempted

invocation of our original jurisdiction to issue the writs of mandamus or

prohibition.

I would dimiss the appeal. Becase the Court instead affirms the

district court’s denial of relief on the merits, I respectfully dissent.

FILED: October 9, 2023
DO NOT PUBLISH