Court Opinion

ID: 9409218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 11:07:46.963578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.529879
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued July 13, 2023

                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                           First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                               NO. 01-23-00454-CR
                             ———————————
                  EX PARTE BENJAMIN ROARK, Appellant

           On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 3
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. 2456923

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Benjamin Roark, was charged with the misdemeanor offense of

violation of a court order in trial court cause number 2447617.1 In the underlying

cause, appellant filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus challenging the

constitutionality of the statute under which he was charged. After a hearing on

1
      See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 25.07(a)(3)(A).
appellant’s habeas application, the trial court denied appellant’s pretrial application

for writ of habeas corpus. On June 9, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal from

the trial court’s denial of his habeas application.

      Subsequently, on June 28, 2023, counsel for appellant filed a “Notice to

Court,” advising the Court that on June 20, 2023, the underlying cause “was

dismissed in connection with a plea agreement.” Counsel further stated that he

“believe[d] this development render[ed] this appeal moot.”

      We agree and dismiss the appeal as moot.

      “Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and is available only when there

is no other adequate remedy at law.” Ex parte Cruzata, 220 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2007). “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 rendered moot.” Bennet v.

State, 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.)

(internal quotations omitted).

      Where, as here, the cause was dismissed in connection with a plea agreement,

the requested habeas relief has been mooted. “[T]he premise of [appellant’s] habeas

corpus application [has been] destroyed . . . [and] the legal issues raised thereunder

are moot.” See Ex parte Guerrero, 99 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (internal quotations omitted).

                                           2
      Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P.

43.2(f). We also dismiss any pending motions as moot.

                                 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                           3