Full Opinion

Opinion filed October 29, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ Nos. 11-26-00248-CR & 11-26-00249-CR __________ EX PARTE SAUNDRA LEA MARCOOT Original Proceeding MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 4, 2026, Saundra Lea Marcoot filed two “Petition[s] for Writ of Habeas Corpus” in this court that relate to her underlying conviction for retaliation, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06(a)(1)(A), (c) (West Supp. 2026); Marcoot v. State, No. 11-24-00268-CR, 2026 WL 2434848, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Aug. 20, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also TEX. CODE CRIM PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2026) (relating to postconviction applications for writ of habeas corpus). In the first application, she asserts that her constitutional rights were violated when a “bailiff serv[ed] simultaneously as a primary prosecution witness and a courtroom or jury handler.” In the second, she asserts that her previous counsel rendered ineffective assistance. This court has no jurisdiction over Marcoot’s original applications for writ of habeas corpus. This court’s authority to exercise original jurisdiction is limited. See TEX. CONST. art. V, §§ 5, 6 (providing that the Court of Criminal Appeals has the power to issue writs of habeas corpus and that intermediate courts of appeals have only original jurisdiction as prescribed by law); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2026) (limited writ powers granted to the courts of appeals); CRIM. PROC. art. 11.05 (providing that district courts, county courts, and the Court of Criminal Appeals have power to issue writs of habeas corpus). When these original proceedings were docketed, we informed Marcoot by letter that this court does not have original jurisdiction in a criminal case. We requested Marcoot to respond and show grounds to continue the original proceedings, if any. Instead of a response, Marcoot filed a “Motion to Accept Late Filing” and attached a postconviction writ application pursuant to Article 11.07 in each proceeding. See CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. As a result, she has not presented grounds to continue the original proceedings in this court. This court is without jurisdiction to consider Marcoot’s applications for habeas corpus relief.1 Accordingly, we dismiss these original proceedings for want of jurisdiction. Marcoot’s pending motions are dismissed as moot.2 W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE October 29, 2026 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 1 We additionally note that we have addressed at least one of the grounds on which she seeks relief in the direct appeal from her conviction. See Marcoot, 2026 WL 2434848, at *13. 2 Because the attachments to her motions appear to be applications for writs of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of this court will return the 11.07 writ applications to Marcoot for her to file in the appropriate court. See CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3. 2