Court Opinion

ID: 7604825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 07:10:56.626765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:24:51.781335
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                                __________________

                                NO. 09-22-00151-CV
                                __________________

                              IN RE JAMES RUBIO

__________________________________________________________________

                           Original Proceeding
           435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 11-04-04400-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In a petition for a writ of mandamus, James Rubio complained that the trial

court failed to rule on an application for a writ of habeas corpus that Rubio filed as

a challenge to a 2011 civil commitment order. We requested a response from the

State of Texas. In its response, the State provided a copy of the trial court’s June 27,

2022 order denying Rubio’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.1 Thus, Rubio’s

      1
         The order denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus neither states
that the writ had issued nor that the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the
application. See Ex parte Miller, No. 09-08-00194-CV, 2008 WL 5780816 at *1
(Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 2, 2009, no pet.) (dismissing appeal challenging the
trial court’s denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus).
                                             1
complaint that the trial court failed to rule on his application for a writ of habeas

corpus is moot.

      After considering the petition and the record, we conclude the relator has not

shown that he is presently entitled to mandamus relief because he has already

received all the relief that he requested in his petition to this Court. Accordingly, we

deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                            PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 27, 2022
Opinion Delivered July 28, 2022

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

                                           2