JESUS ALBERTO GUZMAN CURIPOMA v. << (2024)

OPINION

This case arises from a prosecution in which Appellee was arrested in Kinney County. He attempted to challenge the prosecution by filing a habeas application in Travis County District Court. The Travis County District Court granted relief, and the Kinney County Attorney filed a notice of appeal. Concluding that the Kinney County Attorney was not authorized to appeal on the State's behalf, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal.¹ In its reasoning, the court of appeals held that Appellee's habeas action was properly filed in the Travis County District Court.² In In re Smith, we held that, for a case like this originating in Kinney County, proceedings in the Travis County court are unauthorized.³ We vacate the court of appeals's decision and remand for reconsideration in light of Smith.

FOOTNOTES

1.   State v. Curipoma, 652 S.W.3d 74, 80 (Tex. App.—Austin 2022).

2.   Id. at 77-78.

3.   665 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022).

Per Curiam.

Yeary, J., filed a concurring opinion. Slaughter, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Richardson, Newell and Walker, JJ., joined. Keller, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Hervey and Keel, JJ., joined.