Ex Parte Rebel Hayz Breaux v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00117-CR
__________________

EX PARTE REBEL HAYZ BREAUX

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 163rd District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B240284AR
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to article 11.09 of

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Rebel Hayz Breaux alleged that he was

convicted of a misdemeanor offense on August 19, 2024, and his sentence was

discharged on that date. Breaux alleged his trial counsel provided ineffective

assistance of counsel, and that Breaux did not plead guilty knowingly.

The trial court signed an order denying the application for a writ of habeas

corpus without issuing the writ or holding an evidentiary hearing. In its order

1
denying the application, the trial court stated the writ is improper because “the

applicant is not currently being restrained in his liberty by any party due to this case.”

“The appealability of a habeas proceeding turns not upon the nature of the

claim advanced but upon the use of the procedure itself and the trial court’s decision

to consider the claim (i.e. ‘issue the writ’).” Greenwell v. Ct. of Appeals for the

Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (orig.

proceeding). There is no right to an appeal when a trial court refuses to issue a habeas

writ or dismisses or denies a habeas application without ruling on the merits of the

applicant’s claims. See Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394, 395 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2008).

In this case, the trial court did not determine whether Breaux’s guilty plea had

been knowingly entered, nor did the trial court determine whether Breaux received

effective assistance of counsel. Since the trial court denied the article 11.09

application for a writ of habeas corpus without issuing the writ or ruling on the

applicant’s claims, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 1

1
We note that the trial court did not rule that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a
writ of habeas corpus. Rather, the trial court ruled that Breaux was not under restraint
by reason of his conviction, that is, that the application lacked merit because Breaux
failed to assert that he was suffering from a collateral consequence of his conviction.
In his response to our notice regarding our appellate jurisdiction, Breaux states, “the
presence of Collateral Consequences underscores the necessity of Appellate review
to correct legal errors and prevent Wrongful Restraint.” He does not suggest what
those collateral consequences are, however, nor did he identify a collateral
2
APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on May 20, 2025
Opinion Delivered May 21, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

consequence of his conviction that restrains his liberty in his application to the trial
court.
3