Court Opinion

ID: 9406860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-04 12:07:34.568255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.728604
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                       San Antonio, Texas
                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          No. 04-23-00071-CR

                                       EX PARTE Thomas VELA

                      From the County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas
                                       Trial Court No. 696824
                            Honorable Rosie S. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Irene Rios, Justice
                  Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 28, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           On January 17, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal the trial court’s

order denying relief on his application for writ of habeas corpus seeking reinstatement of bond.

However, on April 12, 2023, the trial court signed an order granting the State’s motion to dismiss

the underlying case due to insufficient evidence.

           “A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of

the legal proceedings, including the appeal.” In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732,

737 (Tex. 2005). “The longstanding rule in Texas regarding habeas corpus is that where the

premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal issues

raised thereunder are moot.” See Ex parte Sifuentes, 639 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2022, pet. ref’d). “A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to decide moot controversies
                                                                                     04-23-00071-CR

and issue advisory opinions.” Ex parte Huerta, 582 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018,

pet. ref’d).

        Because the premise of appellant’s habeas corpus application has been destroyed by the

trial court’s subsequent order dismissing the underlying case, we ordered appellant to show cause

in writing, on or before May 26, 2023, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. In his response to our show cause order, appellant states he “is not opposed to

dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction since the trial court’s subsequent dismissal of the

underlying case has rendered the premise of the habeas corpus application and legal issues raised

thereunder moot.” Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                 PER CURIAM

Do not publish

                                                -2-