Ex Parte Breaux v. State - Habeas Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) dismissed Ex Parte Rebel Hayz Breaux's habeas corpus appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that Breaux failed to demonstrate sufficient current restraint on his liberty to invoke appellate jurisdiction over his misdemeanor family violence assault conviction. This is a procedural dismissal that does not address the merits of Breaux's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
What changed
The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed Breaux's habeas corpus appeal, holding that merely alleging civil disabilities (protective order restrictions, firearm possession prohibitions, limitations on employment, housing, and professional licensure) flowing from a misdemeanor conviction does not constitute the 'restraint of liberty' required for habeas corpus jurisdiction. The court reiterated that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.09 requires a showing of current confinement or restraint by the state to maintain jurisdiction over a misdemeanor habeas matter.
Legal practitioners should note that habeas applicants must demonstrate an explicit, concrete restraint on liberty—not merely collateral consequences of a conviction—to establish jurisdiction. Counsel advising clients on post-conviction relief in misdemeanor cases should explore alternative avenues (such as motions for new trial or expunction procedures) where no current liberty restraint exists. The docket number is 09-25-00322-CR.
What to do next
- Review habeas corpus jurisdictional requirements with clients to ensure they can demonstrate current liberty restraint before filing
- Advise misdemeanor conviction clients that civil disabilities alone do not establish habeas jurisdiction; explore alternative post-conviction remedies
- Update case management systems to flag jurisdictional deficiencies in habeas filings
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 1, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Ex Parte Rebel Hayz Breaux v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 09-25-00322-CR
- Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus
Disposition: Dismissed
Disposition
Dismissed
Lead Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-25-00322-CR
EX PARTE REBEL HAYZ BREAUX
On Appeal from the 163rd District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 250302-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In a previous application for writ of habeas corpus, which Applicant Rebel
Hayz Breaux (“Breaux”) filed pursuant to article 11.09 of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure, Breaux alleged that he was convicted of a misdemeanor offense
on August 19, 2024, and that his sentence was discharged on that date. See Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.09(b). In that application, Breaux alleged that his trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance and that he did not enter his “guilty” plea
knowingly.
1
On April 1, 2025, the trial court denied Breaux’s application for a writ of
habeas corpus without either issuing the writ or holding an evidentiary hearing. In
its order, the trial court stated that the writ is improper because “the applicant is not
currently being restrained in his liberty by any party due to this case.” Breaux
appealed the denial, and we dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 1
Breaux then filed a new application for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that
he was “subject to significant and ongoing restraints on his liberty flowing directly
from the challenged conviction[.]” More specifically, Breaux alleged that his family
violence assault conviction and the protective order attendant thereto affected his
“freedom of movement and access to property,” his right to possess a firearm, and
“[n]umerous other civil disabilities affecting his fundamental rights related to
family, employment, housing, and professional licensure.” Although the trial court
had the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus in a misdemeanor case where the
applicant was no longer confined, provided that the applicant was in some manner
restrained by virtue of a void conviction, the trial court did not do so. See Ex parte
Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The trial court denied
Breaux’s second application, issuing an order that is virtually identical to its prior
1
Ex parte Rebel Hayz Breaux, No. 09-25-00117-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS
3447, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 21, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated
for publication).
2
order and stating that Breaux was “not currently being restrained in his liberty by
any party due to this case.” Without issuing the writ, holding an evidentiary hearing,
or ruling on the merits of Breaux’s claims, the trial court again determined that
“applicant’s Writ of Habeas Corpus is improper.” Breaux appealed the trial court’s
denial.
“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 denied a habeas application without ruling on the merits of the
applicant’s claims. See Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394-95 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008).
Here, as in Villanueva, the trial court did not decide whether Breaux
voluntarily entered his “guilty” plea or whether he received effective assistance of
counsel. See id. at 393. Since the trial court denied Breaux’s article 11.09 application
for a writ of habeas corpus without issuing the writ or ruling on Breaux’s claims, we
dismiss Breaux’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Breaux’s remedy, if any, is through
3
a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel the trial court to act. See Ex parte Young,
257 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008, no pet.); Tex. R. App. P. 52.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
JAY WRIGHT
Justice
Submitted on March 6, 2026
Opinion Delivered April 1, 2026
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.
4
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.