Ex Parte Rebel Hayz Breaux v. the State of Texas

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