Court Opinion

ID: 9406861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-04 12:07:35.256584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.696760
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          No. 04-23-00395-CR

                               EX PARTE Manuel Vallardes TAMAYO

                             From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas
                                       Trial Court No. 10822CR
                               Honorable Susan D. Reed, 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 April 19, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal the trial court’s

order denying his application for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the underlying

information for criminal trespass. However, on April 24, 2023, the trial court signed an order

granting the State’s motion to dismiss the underlying case in the interest of justice.

           “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) (orig. proceeding). “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
                                                                                  04-23-00395-CR

controversies 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 22, 2023, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. To date, appellant has not responded to our order. Accordingly, we dismiss this

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                PER CURIAM

Do not publish

                                              -2-