In Ex parte Sadberry, 864 S.W.2d 541, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), the Court, in an 8-1 decision, held that a violation of the mandatory requirement in article 1.13 that a defendant sign a jury waiver was not cognizable on a writ of habeas corpus. Article 1.13(a) states in pertinent part that a defendant may waive the right to a jury trial "conditioned, however, that such waiver must be made in person by the defendant in writing." In Sadberry, this Court relied upon numerous prior cases which had held that habeas relief is available only for instances in which "the trial court's judgment is void, and cannot be invoked for mere irregularities in the proceedings below." Id. at 542. Unfortunately, the Court used the dreaded word "void" again. However, the cases this Court relied upon correctly stated the circumstances under which habeas relief is available, namely, to review jurisdictional defects or denials of fundamental or constitutional rights. As the Court explained: While we do not sanction noncompliance with procedural rules designed to safeguard constitutional rights, the writ was not intended to provide for relief for such noncompliance where the record is otherwise clear on the rights to which the procedural formalities pertain. Accordingly, we hold that where the applicant does not claim he desired and was deprived of his constitutional right to a trial by jury, that he did not intend to waive a jury trial or that he was otherwise harmed, and the record reflects that the applicant agreed to the waiver, we will not set aside a conviction by habeas corpus or collateral attack due to the applicant's failure to sign a written jury form pursuant to article 1.13. Id. at 543.