Keasler, J., filed this dissenting opinion in which Keller, P.J., and Hervey, J., joined.

The majority decides issues not before the Court. I respectfully dissent.

In unpublished opinions, the Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of Schmidt’s arguments.¹ Before reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals addressed whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the writ applications.² In his petitions for discretionary review, Schmidt raises a single ground for review that contests neither of these conclusions. He claims that “the trial court committed reversible error in failing to grant habeas corpus relief, where the record shows that [Schmidt] did not knowingly and intelligently waive his federal constitutional right to trial by jury [in the relevant cause numbers].” Schmidt’s briefs to this Court repeat this contention. But the Court of Appeals did not even reach this question.

The majority looks beyond Schmidt’s ground for review to decide whether a trial court has jurisdiction over an Art. 11.09 writ application when the applicant alleges restraint but not confinement. In addition, the Court decides that county courts do in fact have jurisdiction over habeas applications. Neither of these issues is before the Court.

I would dismiss this case as improvidently granted. Because the Court does not do so, I respectfully dissent.

DATE FILED: July 2, 2003

PUBLISH

¹ Schmidt v. State, No. 14-97-01116-CR (Tex. App. – Houston [14^th Dist.] March 18, 1999) (not designated for publication); Schmidt v. State, No. 14-97-01398-CR (Tex. App. – Houston [14^th Dist.] April 1, 1999) (not designated for publication).

² Id., slip ops. at 2-3.