## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00212

- CR

EX PARTE FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ MORALES

On Appeal from the County Court Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 14527CR

Before Steve ns , C.J., van Cleef and Ram bin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

F ernando Rodriguez Morales appeals the trial court’s order denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. 1 Morales’s application complained of bond condition s requiring his in

person attendanc e on dates that have already passed. Because we find the issue moot, we
dismiss Morales’s complaint

. See Ex parte Gutierrez Ruiz , No. 04

- 23

- 00301

- CR, 2023 WL 6453813, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Oct. 4, 2023 , orig. proceeding ) (pe r curiam) (mem. op. ,

no t designated for publication ) ; Ex parte Santiago Villalobos , No. 04

- 23

- 00305

- CR, 2023 WL 5604192, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 30, 2023 , orig. proceeding ) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for p ublication) ; In re Lozano Agu ilar , No. 04

- 23

- 00295

- CR, 2023 WL 5418321, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 23, 2023 , orig. proceeding ) (per curiam) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication)

. I. Factual and Procedural Background As part of Operation Lone Star (OLS), Morales , a non citi zen, was arrested for trespassing on private property in Ki nney County, Texas. On June 3, 2023 , Morales was released on a $4,000.00 bond and transported t o a b order p atrol s tation where he was promptly deported. As a
condition of bo nd, Morales a gre ed to appear via Zoom at two hearings

. He also agreed to appear
in

- person before the trial court on September 5 , 2023, for a docket call and on Se ptember 11 for a jury trial. Morales was warne d that “FAILURE TO APP EAR may re sult in a BOND
FORFEIT URE AND A W ARR ANT FOR ARREST.”

1 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this case wa s transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization effort s
. S e e T E X

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (Supp.). We follow t he precedent of the Fourth Cour t of Appeals in deciding this case. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 41.3.3

Because Morales had been deported and could not legally return to the United States, he
filed a n application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to modify the conditions of his bond requiring him to ap pear in

- person on September 5 and Se ptember 11 o n th e ground that such requirements violated his right to due process

. At the September 5 pretrial hearing , the State
asked for a bond forfeiture , and the trial court asked that Morales’s name b e c alled “at the courthouse steps

. ” Ev en so, the record do es not indicate that the bond was forfeited . It also d oes not show any entry for the September 11 trial and fails to indicate if a new trial setting was set.
O n September 1 6 , 2023, wi thou t an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Morale s ’s
app lica tion for a writ of habeas corpus

. 2 Morales appeals th at decision.
II. Morales’s Co mplaint is Moot
The record shows that Morales was only required to appear in person o n Septemb er 5 and September 11. Despite Mor ales ’ s non
- appearance at the September 5 heari ng, the trial court
learned that he did not appear in person because he was deported . The record fails to contain any
consequence for non

- appearance and does not show th a t Mor ales’s bond was forfeited or that
th ere is any pending trial da te. Because Morales’ s complaint s about his required in

- person

2 As a preliminary matt er, we address our jurisdiction. The trial court’s order in this case specifies t hat i t “( 1) heard and considered [ Morales ’s] habeas application, (2) based its ruling on its [review] of the application , ” and “(3) denied it without an evide ntiary hearing.” Ex parte Barahona

- Gomez , No. 04

- 23

- 00230

- CR, 2023 WL 6285324, at *1 (Tex. App.

— S an Antoni o Sept. 27, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op. , not de signated for publication). At t he S ept ember 5 pretrial hearing, the trial court commented “that just bec ause y ou say they can’t come back in the United States, it doesn’t mean that they can’t c o me back into the United States.” As did the Fourth C ourt of Appeals in Ex parte Barahona

- Gom ez , we conclude that the trial court ruled on the m erits and that, as a r esult, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Id. (“ clarifying an app ella te cour t has jurisdicti o n over an appeal of a trial court’s denial of an application for writ of habeas corpu s re gardless of whether the trial court refuses to issue the writ or cond uct an evidentiary hearing if the trial cour t ‘under[takes] to rule on the merits of the applicat i on’ ” (alt eration in original)) ( quotin g Ex parte Hargett , 819 S .W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Cr im. App. 1991) , superseded in part by statute as discussed in Ex parte Villanueva , 252 S.W.3d 391, 395

– 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ; see Ex parte Smith , 178 S.W.3d 797, 801 (T ex. Crim. App. 2005) (per curiam)

.4

attendance at the Septe mber 5 pretrial hearing and September 11 trial are moot , we affirm the

t rial court ’ s order denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus

. 3

Scott E. Stevens Chie f Ju s tice
Date Submitted: January 3, 2024 Date Decided: January 16 , 2024
Do Not P ubli sh

3 To the extent that Morales complains of a futur e he aring or trial setting, we find the issue not yet ripe for re view sin ce Morale s does not contend that such a setting was mad e.