This study aimed to criticize the new change of jurisprudence by the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice for no more admit the Habeas Corpus replacement of Ordinary Appeal in Habeas Corpus, even in light of the precarious reasons presented in exaggerated volume requests for habeas corpus, that it would be demoralized the ordinary instances and that the habeas substitute is inappropriate before his lack of foresight in the constitutional text, these are the arguments used by superior courts to justify a change of understanding in its jurisprudence. It happens that, logically, it does not solve anything in the "problem", only worse, considering that if the lawyer miss the deadline for filing an ordinary appeal, who is harmed is the patient, with their freedom mitigated in function of transit in the trial decision dismissing the order nothing else will fit, subject to a decision (the court "a quo") illegal can no longer be analyzed. After several years of consolidated jurisprudence resolve now modify. Resources will be brought ordinary habeas corpus, almost the same amount of habeas corpus substitute, not decreasing the number of cases in the superior courts.