Court Opinion

ID: 9966094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-04 18:12:19.249033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:10.566264
License: Public Domain

NUMBERS 13-23-00510-CR, 13-23-00511-CR

                                 COURT OF APPEALS

                      THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                  EX PARTE JORGE ULISES APODERADO CADENA

                     ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT
                          OF KINNEY COUNTY, TEXAS

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña
              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

       Appellant Jorge Ulises Apoderado Cadena attempts to appeal from a denial of his

pretrial writs of habeas corpus seeking to modify the conditions of his bail. The State has

filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the underlying order denying appellant’s

requested relief was improperly entered and is void. As such, the State argues that

appellant’s appeal is moot and should be dismissed. 1 We agree.

       1  This case is before this Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio
pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§§ 22.220(a) (delineating the jurisdiction of appellate courts), 73.001 (granting the supreme court the
        On June 6, 2023, appellant was charged by information for evading arrest and

criminal trespass. 2 At his magistrate hearing, as a condition of his bond, appellant was

ordered to appear before the County Court for his next hearing. Appellant was informed,

via his notice of appearance, that if he did not appear before the court on the scheduled

date and time, his “bond may be forfeited and an order for [his] arrest may be issued, and

new charges brought for bail jumping.” Upon posting his bond, appellant was

apprehended by federal immigration authorities in accordance with an Immigration

Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer, and he was subsequently removed from the United

States.

        On August 28, 2023, in the County Court for Kinney County, appellant filed in both

trial court causes identical pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus seeking to modify

his bond conditions to allow him to appear remotely/electronically for his hearings,

because he was no longer in the United States.

        At a subsequent hearing before the trial court, on September 5, 2023, appellant’s

counsel appeared but appellant failed to appear in person. Counsel for appellant

requested that the hearing be reset so that appellant’s pending writ of habeas corpus

motions could be decided by the county court judge assigned for all writs in Kinney

authority to transfer cases from one court of appeals to another at any time that there is “good cause” for
the transfer).
       2 Appellant was charged with evading arrest in cause number 14532CR, appellate cause number

12-23-00510-CR and charged with criminal trespass in cause number 14533CR, appellate cause number
12-23-00511-CR.

                                                    2
County. The request was denied. The State requested bond forfeiture for failure to appear

and the trial court granted the request. The trial court issued a capias for appellant’s arrest

for failure to appear on September 13, 2023. Subsequently, on September 22, 2023, the

county court judge denied appellant’s applications for pretrial writ of habeas corpus. It is

this denial appellant attempts to appeal.

       After reviewing the record, we dismiss appellant’s appeals as moot. The issuance

of the capias for appellant’s arrest and his bond forfeiture renders moot any complaint

arising from the underlying conditions of the now forfeited bond. See Ex parte Worden,

502 S.W.2d 803, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see also Ex parte Windsor, No. 10-14-

00401-CR, 2016 WL 192303, at *8 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 14, 2016, pet. denied) (mem.

op., not designated for publication) (“The issuance of a valid Governor’s warrant renders

moot any complaint arising from confinement under a fugitive warrant, including detention

in excess of the statutory period.”); Ex parte Price, No. 10-19-00122-CR, 2019 WL

6049941, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 13, 2019, no pet.) (same). Because appellant is

no longer in custody, as his bond has been forfeited, his claims are moot. See Armes v.

State, 573 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (habeas unavailable if applicant no longer

in custody); see also Ex parte Alt, 958 S.W.2d 948, 952 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.)

(habeas not available to secure judicial determination of question which, “even if decided

in the applicant's favor, could not result in his immediate discharge.”); Ex parte Stowell,

940 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (habeas action moot when

                                              3
petitioner extradited to another state and no motion to stay extradition was filed). In light

of the foregoing, we dismiss appellant’s appeals as moot.

                                                                NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                                Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
2nd day of May, 2024.

                                             4