## Facts

- David Michael Powell, a juvenile, was the subject of a juvenile court transfer proceeding under Texas Family Code § 54.02 to determine whether jurisdiction should be waived and the case transferred to district court for criminal prosecution.
- After a hearing on March 3, 1977, the juvenile court entered a transfer order on March 4, 1977 that appeared regular on its face.
- On September 16, 1977, Powell filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus in the district court.
- He alleged errors in the transfer hearing, including improper admission of evidence, insufficiency of the juvenile court’s findings of fact, and insufficiency of the evidence supporting those findings.
- He also challenged bail as excessive; the district court reduced bail, and that issue was not pursued further.
- The district court denied habeas relief as to the alleged transfer-hearing errors, and Powell appealed that denial to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether pretrial habeas corpus in a criminal district court may be used to obtain review of alleged evidentiary and procedural errors, and alleged insufficiency of findings or evidence, from an earlier juvenile transfer hearing when the transfer order is facially valid and the indictment and probable cause are not challenged.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying pretrial habeas relief.
- The court held that pretrial habeas corpus was not a proper vehicle to review alleged errors in the juvenile transfer hearing under these circumstances.
- The court declined to reach the merits of Powell’s complaints about evidence, findings, and evidentiary sufficiency at the transfer hearing.

## Legal Principles

- Habeas corpus in Texas criminal procedure is limited to claims of unlawful restraint and is not available to correct ordinary errors that are reviewable by appeal.
- Habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.
- Pretrial habeas relief is generally available to attack matters that prevent the criminal court from proceeding (e.g., a void indictment or other jurisdictional defects), but not to obtain pretrial review of alleged procedural or evidentiary mistakes in earlier proceedings.
- Where a juvenile transfer order is not challenged for facial invalidity, and the petitioner does not attack the indictment or contest probable cause, alleged defects in the conduct of the juvenile transfer hearing must be raised through the ordinary appellate process in the proper forum rather than by pretrial habeas in criminal court.

## Conclusion

The court held that a defendant may not use pretrial habeas corpus in criminal court to litigate alleged evidentiary and procedural errors, or sufficiency complaints, from a juvenile transfer hearing when the transfer order is facially valid and the criminal prosecution is not otherwise jurisdictionally defective.


Ex parte Powell, 558 S.W.2d 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)