Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-26-00530-CR
EX PARTE SEAN MCNAMARA
From the County Court at Law, Medina County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2601
Honorable Mark Cashion, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 26, 2026
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
Pro se appellant Sean McNamara appeals the denial of his application for writ of habeas
corpus. Because at the time he filed his application, McNamara suffered no restraint of his liberty
and the trial court did not rule on the merits of his application, we dismiss McNamara’s appeal for
want of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2025, McNamara was arrested for resisting arrest, a class A misdemeanor.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.03(a), (c). On June 22, 2026, McNamara filed an application for
writ of habeas corpus claiming his resisting arrest charge remained pending and requested
“immediate discharge from all restraint” asserting he was still subject to bond conditions.
04-26-00530-CR
McNamara also requested relief pertaining to his duty to register as a sex offender stemming from
a prior proceeding. The trial court soon thereafter set a status conference with McNamara and the
State. Prior to the conference, McNamara filed a motion and attached a March 25, 2026 email filed
with the Medina County Clerk’s Office wherein the Medina County Criminal District Attorney’s
Office indicates it dismissed McNamara’s resisting arrest criminal case.
Following the July 6, 2026 status conference, the trial court denied McNamara’s habeas
application, noting “due to lack of jurisdiction.” McNamara appeals. The State requests we dismiss
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Attached to the State’s request is an affidavit from the first
assistant district attorney with the Medina County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, who attests
to declining prosecution of McNamara’s case on March 25, 2026, following her review. Thereby,
no criminal offense was filed against McNamara for resisting arrest. The State additionally
attached an email from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the State agency responsible for
administering sex offender registrations, addressed to McNamara regarding his duty to register as
a sex offender regardless of the resolution of his prior proceeding.
JURISDICTION
“[T]he writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in the
absence of an adequate remedy at law.” Ex parte Beck, 541 S.W.3d 846, 852 (Tex. Crim. App.
2017). Article 11.09 concerns applications for writs of habeas corpus in misdemeanor proceedings
involving some type of restraint on the applicant’s liberty. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
11.09; see also id. at art. 11.01 (defining “what writ is” as “the remedy to be used when any person
is restrained in his liberty”). For a court to have jurisdiction over a habeas application in a
misdemeanor cause under article 11.09, an applicant must demonstrate that he is “confined” or
“restrained” by either an accusation or a conviction. See Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480, 481–
-2-04-26-00530-CR
83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Ex parte Ali, 368 S.W.3d 827, 831 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, pet.
ref’d) (noting that courts broadly define the “[t]he terms ‘confinement’ and ‘restraint,’ for habeas
corpus purposes”); see also Ex parte Karlson, 282 S.W.3d 118, 126 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009,
pet. ref’d); Ex parte Rinkevich, 222 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); Dahesh
v. State, 51 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d).
Here, McNamara was neither convicted nor remains accused of committing an offense, as
the Medina County Criminal District Attorney’s Office declined prosecution of his case. Thus,
McNamara cannot demonstrate that he is confined or restrained, entitling him to seek habeas relief.
See Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d at 481–83. “When a trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a
habeas application, [reviewing courts] also have no jurisdiction to consider the same.” Ex parte
Karlson, 282 S.W.3d at 125.
Moreover, when a habeas court denies an article 11.09 habeas application without
considering the application’s merits—as is applicable here—we are without jurisdiction to review
the same. See Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
CONCLUSION
We dismiss McNamara’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Irene Rios, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-