Tony Chavez v. State of Texas - Habeas Corpus - Bail Dismissed

Texas Court of Appeals

Filed March 5th, 2026

Detected March 7th, 2026

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District, dismissed Tony Chavez's original proceeding seeking a bond reduction. The court found it lacked original habeas jurisdiction in criminal cases, as such jurisdiction is limited to county courts, district courts, and the Court of Criminal Appeals. The proceeding was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District, has dismissed the original proceeding filed by Tony Chavez, who was seeking a bond reduction for his pending criminal cases. The court's disposition was 'Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction.' Chavez had attempted to invoke the court's original jurisdiction by filing a motion for habeas corpus bond reduction, citing alleged violations of Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the state's readiness for trial. However, the court clarified that as a court of appeals, it does not possess original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters, which is statutorily limited to lower trial courts and the Court of Criminal Appeals.

This dismissal means that Chavez's attempt to have his bond reduced at the appellate level has failed due to procedural grounds. Regulated entities, particularly legal professionals and criminal defendants, should note that appellate courts generally do not entertain original habeas corpus petitions for bond reduction. Such matters must be pursued through the appropriate trial courts or, in specific circumstances, the state's highest criminal court. No compliance actions are required for regulated entities as this is a specific case dismissal, but it reinforces jurisdictional boundaries for legal practitioners.

Source document (simplified)

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.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re Tony Chavez v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 11-26-00024-CR
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Bail
Disposition: Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction
Opinion
Authorities (1)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Disposition

Dismissed-Want of Jurisdiction

Lead Opinion

Opinion filed March 5, 2026

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

No. 11-26-00024-CR

IN RE TONY CHAVEZ

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Tony Chavez, filed this original proceeding pro se, seeking a bond
reduction in this court for his pending criminal cases. We dismiss this original
proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
Chavez filed a “Motion for Habeas Corpus Bond Reduction Under
Art. 17.151, 11.24 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,” which we construe as his
attempt to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court. Chavez requests “this Court
for Bond Reductions on his six (6) cases he currently faces in the Ector Co.
Courthouse” and requests that we “Grant[] his BOND REDUCTION[]S and/o[r]
P.R. BOND[]S in the [a]bove [s]tyled [c]ase [n]umbers.” In this regard, he lists three
pending felonies, indicted in two different Ector County district courts, and one
pending misdemeanor in the Ector County Court at Law No. 2. He includes two
blank lines for case numbers, charges, and bond amounts for the remaining two
“cases.” Chavez also has court-appointed counsel. In the filing, he states that he
“was denied bond reductions [in the trial court] on January 8[], 2026.” He also states
that “[t]he State has not announced it was ready for trial within the 90 days as
required under Art. 17.151 . . . [a]llowing for [personal recognizance] Bonds or
Reduced Bail Amounts.” See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.151, § 1(1) (West
Supp. 2025) (trial court must release a defendant on a personal recognizance bond
or reduce a defendant’s bail amount to an amount he can make if the State is not
ready for trial within ninety days of the defendant’s detention for a felony offense).
Chavez has provided no supporting documentation.
When this appeal was docketed, the clerk of this court informed the parties
that we do not have original habeas jurisdiction in a criminal case. Chavez was also
notified that there is no right to hybrid representation. Chavez’s counsel was
directed to respond and show grounds to continue this proceeding, if any, and the
parties were informed that the proceeding was subject to dismissal. Neither Chavez
nor his counsel filed a response.
As a court of appeals, we do not have original habeas jurisdiction in criminal
cases. CRIM. PROC. art. 11.05 (original habeas jurisdiction is limited to county
courts, district courts, and the Court of Criminal Appeals); In re Proctor, No. 11-20-
00075-CR, 2020 WL 1181934, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 12, 2020, orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also TEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West Supp. 2025) (limiting original habeas
jurisdiction to civil cases). Therefore, we do not have original habeas jurisdiction to
address Relator’s “Motion for Habeas Corpus.” Even if we did, Chavez is
represented by counsel and criminal defendants have no right to hybrid
representation. Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); In
2
re Scott, No. 01-20-00793-CR, 2020 WL 7062319, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] Dec. 3, 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (relator-defendant was not entitled to hybrid representation before an
appellate court). Chavez’s counsel has not responded with grounds to continue this
proceeding or to clarify any relief sought by him that would invoke our jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dismiss this original proceeding for want of jurisdiction.