Ex Parte Billy Wilson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 2, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00012-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00012-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

EX PARTE BILLY WILSON

ON APPEAL FROM THE 94TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

On January 3, 2024, appellant Billy Wilson filed a notice of appeal from an order

setting bond in a habeas corpus proceeding in trial court cause number 23FC-3828-C in

the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. On February 5, 2024, appellant’s

counsel filed a letter stating that appellant had been transferred to the Bexar County jail

on a detainer, and that “[c]ounsel believes the appeal has become moot because

[appellant] would still be in custody even if he had received [his] requested relief in the

trial court or in this appeal.” Appellant’s counsel advised this Court that he was unable to obtain appellant’s signature in order to file a motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

In order to avoid delay and to preserve the parties’ rights, we abated this appeal

and remanded it to the trial court. See id. R. 44.3, 44.4. We directed the trial court to make

appropriate findings and recommendations concerning: (1) whether appellant wished to

pursue his appeal; (2) whether appellant had effectively abandoned the appeal; (3) if

counsel had abandoned the representation of appellant; (4) whether appellant’s rights

were adversely affected by delay; (5) whether new counsel should be appointed; and (6)

whether any other orders were necessary to ensure the proper and timely pursuit of

appellant’s appeal. We directed the trial court to file supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s

records regarding the proceedings on remand.

The trial court has now filed these supplemental records. Therefore, we reinstate

the appeal. According to these supplemental records, “the State has declined to

prosecute this case and [appellant] and his sureties have been released from further

obligations under the bond[,] which is the subject of the present appeal, thus rendering

the appeal moot.”

The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which there is an actual

controversy between the parties. Truong v. State, 580 S.W.3d 203, 207 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.); Ex parte Sewell, 495 S.W.3d 54, 55 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.). “When there has ceased to be a controversy between

the litigating parties which is due to events occurring after judgment has been rendered

by the trial court, the decision of an appellate court would be a mere academic exercise

2 and the court may not decide the appeal.” Ex parte Flores, 130 S.W.3d 100, 105 (Tex.

App.—El Paso 2003, pet. ref’d); see State v. Garza, 774 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1989, pet. ref’d) (“It is axiomatic that a cause becomes moot

when the appellate court’s judgment cannot have any practical legal effect upon a

controversy.”). An appellate court has no jurisdiction to decide moot controversies and

issue advisory opinions. Ex parte Huerta, 582 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

2018, pet. ref’d).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the events on remand, the

supplemental records, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that this appeal has been

rendered moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

GINA M. BENAVIDES Justice

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

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