Court Opinion

ID: 9915698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-06 18:13:07.586588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:01.132504
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00173-CR

                              COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                       CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                            EX PARTE TYRONE AMOS

                      On appeal from the 93rd District Court
                           of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

                   Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña
                    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

       Appellant appeals the trial court’s order denying his application for pretrial writ of

habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. Appellant

has filed a response stating that he agrees that the appeal is moot. We dismiss the appeal

for want of jurisdiction.

       Appellant was indicted for one count of intoxication manslaughter and two counts

of intoxication assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.07, 49.08. Appellant later filed
an application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus arguing he was entitled to be released on

personal bond or have his bail reduced because the State was not ready for trial within

ninety days of his detention. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.151. The trial court

subsequently signed an order releasing appellant on a personal recognizance bond and

ordered the conditions of his bond to include an alternative incarceration program and a

remote alcohol monitoring device.

       A case is moot when there is no justiciable controversy between the parties or

when the parties lack a legally recognizable interest in the outcome. State ex rel. Best v.

Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2018). “We are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions,

the distinctive feature of which is that it decides an abstract question of law without binding

the parties.” Tucker v. State, 136 S.W.3d 699, 701 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.);

see TEX. CONST. art. II, § 1; Perez v. State, 938 S.W.2d 761, 764 (Tex. App.–Austin 1997,

pet. ref’d). Accordingly, if a case becomes moot, we must dismiss the case for want of

jurisdiction. Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). Because

appellant has been granted all the relief he seeks in his application for pretrial writ of

habeas corpus, there is no longer a justiciable controversy in the present appeal, and we

lack subject matter jurisdiction. See id.

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the State’s motion, appellant’s

response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that this appeal has been rendered

moot. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion to dismiss, and we dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. We further dismiss appellant’s motion for immediate release on

pretrial writ of habeas corpus as moot.

                                              2
                                 L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                 Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
4th day of January, 2024.

                             3