Ex Parte Marcus Tyrone Grant v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Date FiledAugust 6, 2026
Docket01-24-00945-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Opinion issued August 6, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00945-CR
NO. 01-24-00946-CR
———————————
EX PARTE MARCUS TYRONE GRANT, Appellant
On Appeal from the 506th District Court
Waller County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 24-08-19271 and 24-08019233
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Marcus Tyrone Grant, proceeding pro se is attempting to appeal
from the denial of his pro se applications for writ of habeas corpus in each trial court
cause number. We dismiss.
At the time appellant filed the two applications for writ of habeas corpus at
issue here, he was not represented by counsel. Although the application were filed
by appellant pro se, his appointed counsel argued the applications during a hearing
held on November 4, 2024. The applications challenged the June 10, 2024 orders of
commitment signed by the magistrate, ordering appellant placed in the Waller
County Jail, after being charged with delivery of a controlled substance, penalty
group 1, and to be held in jail unless he was gave a good and sufficient bond in the
amount of $100,000.00. Appellant objected to this commitment order on the ground
that it was insufficient to identify the person’s position to have authority to issue the
commitment order as the order did not specify the particular court. After hearing
argument, the trial court orally denied the applications.
The clerk’s records filed in these two appellate causes contained no written
order denying appellant’s applications. The Court requested supplemental clerk’s
records containing the trial court’s orders denying appellant’s applications for writ
of habeas corpus. Supplemental clerk’s records were filed but they did not contain
written orders denying the applications.1
1
In appellant’s previous habeas appeals in appellate cause numbers 01-24-00988-CR
and 01-24-00989-CR, this Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because there were no written orders denying appellant’s applications for writ of
habeas corpus. See Ex parte Grant, Nos. 01-24-00988-CR and 01-24-00989-CR,
2025 WL 920059, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] March 27, 2025, no pet.).
2
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31 requires a trial court clerk to prepare
and certify a clerk’s record when an appellant files a notice of appeal from an order
in a habeas corpus proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1. An oral pronouncement is
not an appealable written order in a habeas proceeding. See Ex parte Wiley, 949
S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for lack of
written order denying application for writ of habeas corpus). Absent a written order
denying appellant’s applications for writ of habeas corpus, we lack jurisdiction over
these appeals. See Ex parte Grant, Nos. 01-24-00988-CR and 01-24-00989-CR,
2025 WL 920059, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] March 27, 2025, no pet.).
Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss
any pending motions.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Caughey, Johnson, and Dokupil.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3