### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-18-00368- CR NO. 03-18-00369- CR

Ex parte Christian Rodriguez

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 167 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NOS . D-1 -DC- 17- 3002 94 & D-1 -DC- 17- 3002 95, THE HO NORAB LE P . DAVID W AHLB ERG, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In eac h of these case s, appellant Christian Rodrigue z filed a notice of appea l from the trial court’s deni al of his pretria l application for writ of habea s corpus in which he soug ht a bond reduc tion. SeeTex. Code Crim. P roc. a rts. 11.08, 11.24. It is well establi s hed that a written and signe d appea lable order is a prer equisite to invoking this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) (1); State v. Rosenbaum , 818 S.W .2d 398, 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Dewa l t v. State , 417 S.W .3d 678, 685 n.32 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d); Ortiz v. Stat e , 299 S.W .3d 930, 933 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2009,

no pet.); State v. Cox , 235 S.W .3d 283, 285 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2007, no pet.); see also State

v. Sanavongxay , 407 S.W .3d 252, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (noting that “pre cede nt require s that an orde r be in writing”) . No such orde r appe ars in the r ecord in either of the se ca ses.

Or d i n ar i l y in a case in which there has been a ruli ng but no written order has been enter ed, we would treat the notice of appea l a s prematurely filed, abate the appea l, and rema nd thecase to the trial court for prepa ratio n o f an ap p eala

ble order

. See Alexande r v. State , No. 03-13-00337- CR, 2014 WL 3562719, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin J uly 18, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication); Dewalt , 417 S.W .3d at 685 n.32; State v. Rollins , 4 S.W .3d 453, 454 & n.1 ( Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.); see also Tex. R. App. P

. 27.1(b) (prema turely filed notice of appeal in criminal case is eff ective and deeme d filed on same day appea lable order is signe d by trial court); Tex. R. App. P. 44.4(b) (re quiring appellate court to direc t trial court to corr ect

reme diable er

ror that pr events prope r pre sentation of appe al). In these cases, however, there is an additional jurisdictional defe ct that ca nnot be cur ed. Whil e this appea l was pending , the case s for which appellant was s u bjected to pretria l confine ment have been disposed of. Be cause appellant is no longe r subject to pretria l confine ment 1 in e ither of these case s, the appea ls of the trial court’s ruling on appellant’ s pretria l a pplication for writ of habea s corpus have been rende red moot, and we there fore lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Ex parte Tucker , 3 S.W .3d 576, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Martinez v. State , 826 S.W .2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Armendare z v. Stat e , 798 S.W .2d 291, 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Alexande r , 2014 WL 3562719, at * 1 ; Ex Parte Foster, No. 02-11-00075-CR, 2012 WL 42934, at *1 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth J an. 5, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nate d fo r publication); Ex parte Gue rrero , 99 S.W .3d 852, 853 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

The cler k’s rec ord in appea l number 03-18-00368- CR (trial court n umber 1 D-1-DC-17-300294) contains the trial court’s order , signe d on J une 8, 2018, dismiss ing the ca s e beca use appellant has been convicted in another case . The cler k’s re co rd i n appea l number 03-18-00369- CR (trial court number D-1-D C-17-300295) co n t ains a judge ment of conviction, en t er ed on J une 8, 2018, convicting appellant of ag gravated sexual assault and sentenc ing him to confine ment for 20 year s in the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice. 2Considering that we would lack jurisdiction in these appea ls even if the rec ords had

included a signe d written order , it would be an unwar rante d waste ofjudicial resour ces to now abate these appea ls and rema

nd these case s to compel the trial court to sign a written order memorializing its ruling deny

ing appellant’ s application for writ of habea s co rp u s . Ac cordingly , under these particula r circ umstances, we decline to a bate the a ppeals a nd instead proce ed with our dispositi on of them. We dismiss t hese a ppeals for lack of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bour land, J ustice Be fore J ustices Puryear , Pemberton, and B ourland Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: June 14, 2018 Do Not Publish

3