Court Opinion

ID: 9919006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 09:11:09.396149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:56.164388
License: Public Domain

In the
              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 Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Fernando Rodriguez Morales appeals the trial court’s order denying his application for a

writ of habeas corpus.1 Morales’s application complained of bond conditions requiring his in-

person attendance 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) (per curiam) (mem. op.,

not 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 publication); In re Lozano Aguilar, No. 04-23-00295-CR, 2023 WL

5418321, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 23, 2023, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem.

op., not designated for publication).

I.      Factual and Procedural Background

        As part of Operation Lone Star (OLS), Morales, a noncitizen, was arrested for trespassing

on private property in Kinney County, Texas. On June 3, 2023, Morales was released on a

$4,000.00 bond and transported to a border patrol station where he was promptly deported. As a

condition of bond, Morales agreed 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 September 11 for

a jury trial.    Morales was warned that “FAILURE TO APPEAR may result in a BOND

FORFEITURE AND A WARRANT FOR ARREST.”

1
 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). We follow the
precedent of the Fourth Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
                                                       2
         Because Morales had been deported and could not legally return to the United States, he

filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to modify the conditions of his bond

requiring him to appear in-person on September 5 and September 11 on the 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 be called “at the

courthouse steps.” Even so, the record does not indicate that the bond was forfeited. It also does

not show any entry for the September 11 trial and fails to indicate if a new trial setting was set.

         On September 16, 2023, without an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Morales’s

application for a writ of habeas corpus.2 Morales appeals that decision.

II.      Morales’s Complaint is Moot

         The record shows that Morales was only required to appear in person on September 5 and

September 11. Despite Morales’s non-appearance at the September 5 hearing, 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 that Morales’s bond was forfeited or that

there is any pending trial date. Because Morales’s complaints about his required in-person

2
 As a preliminary matter, we address our jurisdiction. The trial court’s order in this case specifies that it “(1) heard
and considered [Morales’s] habeas application, (2) based its ruling on its [review] of the application,” and
“(3) denied it without an evidentiary hearing.” Ex parte Barahona-Gomez, No. 04-23-00230-CR, 2023 WL
6285324, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 27, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). At the
September 5 pretrial hearing, the trial court commented “that just because you say they can’t come back in the
United States, it doesn’t mean that they can’t come back into the United States.” As did the Fourth Court of Appeals
in Ex parte Barahona-Gomez, we conclude that the trial court ruled on the merits and that, as a result, we have
jurisdiction over this appeal. Id. (“clarifying an appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal of a trial court’s
denial of an application for writ of habeas corpus regardless of whether the trial court refuses to issue the writ or
conduct an evidentiary hearing if the trial court ‘under[takes] to rule on the merits of the application’” (alteration in
original)) (quoting Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim. 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (per curiam).
                                                           3
attendance at the September 5 pretrial hearing and September 11 trial are moot, we affirm the

trial court’s order denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus.3

                                                     Scott E. Stevens
                                                     Chief Justice

Date Submitted:           January 3, 2024
Date Decided:             January 16, 2024

Do Not Publish

3
 To the extent that Morales complains of a future hearing or trial setting, we find the issue not yet ripe for review
since Morales does not contend that such a setting was made.
                                                         4