IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00009-CV

No. 10-19-00010-CV

No. 10-19-00011-CV

No. 10-19-00012-CV

No. 10-19-00013-CV

PATRICK WAYNE BOREN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 1997-543-C, 1999-63-C2, 

2005-1640-C2, 2005-1165-C2 and 2009-762-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In each of the cases underlying these appeals, the trial court signed an order to 

withdraw funds from Appellant Patrick Wayne Boren’s inmate account with the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice. Boren thereafter filed in each case a pro se “Motion for 

the Court to Rescind the Court’s Garnishment Orders and the Court’s Withdrawal 
Boren v. State Page 2

Notifications.” On December 14, 2018, the trial court signed an order in each case denying 

Boren’s motion.

Boren filed notices of appeal from the trial court’s December 14, 2018 orders. But 

on February 11, 2019, the trial court sua sponte signed in each case an “Order Withdrawing 

Garnishment Order,” which granted Boren’s “Motion for the Court to Rescind the Court’s 

Garnishment Orders and the Court’s Withdrawal Notifications” and “Ordered, 

Adjudged and Decreed that the Garnishment Order entered in this cause is withdrawn 

....” In each of these appeals, Boren therefore filed a “Motion to Withdraw His Appeal as 

Moot.”

We questioned whether the trial court had jurisdiction to sign the February 11, 

2019 “Order Withdrawing Garnishment Order” in each case or whether the February 11, 

2019 orders were void. See Martin v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 176 S.W.3d 

390, 393-94 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (“Judicial action taken after the 

trial court’s plenary power has expired is void.”). We thus abated these appeals, thereby 

reinvesting the trial court with jurisdiction over the proceedings. During the period of 

abatement, the trial court signed another “Order Withdrawing Garnishment Order” in 

each case, withdrawing the December 14, 2018 orders and granting Boren’s “Motion for 

the Court to Rescind the Court’s Garnishment Orders and the Court’s Withdrawal 

Notifications.”

Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot controversies. See Nat’l Collegiate 

Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). “A case becomes moot if, since the time 

of filing, there has ceased to exist a justiciable controversy between the parties—that is, if 
Boren v. State Page 3

the issues presented are no longer ‘live,’ or if the parties lack a legally cognizable interest 

in the outcome.” Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012).

This Court’s abatement order notified the parties that it appeared that these 

appeals would become moot if during the period of abatement, the trial court signed an 

order that withdrew, or set aside, the orders that the trial court signed on December 14, 

2018, similar in content and intent to that document signed on February 11, 2019, 

purporting to withdraw its orders signed on December 14, 2018. As stated above, the 

trial court signed such an order. Accordingly, we conclude that these appeals have 

become moot, and we therefore dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Boren’s “Motion to Withdraw His Appeal as Moot,” based on the 

document signed by the trial court on February 11, 2019, is also dismissed in each case.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Neill

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 17, 2019

[CV06]