Ex Parte Forrest Greenberg v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-00520-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued September 30, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00520-CR ——————————— EX PARTE FORREST GREENBERG, Appellant

On Appeal from the 488th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1865734

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Forrest Greenberg, was indicted for the first-degree felony offense

of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than 14 years old.1 In the underlying

case, appellant filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus asserting that he

was not indicted within the statute of limitations for the offense. After a hearing on

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021. appellant’s pretrial habeas application, the trial court denied appellant’s pretrial

application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from

the trial court’s denial of his habeas application.

On September 16, 2025, the State filed a “Motion to Dismiss as Moot,” stating

that on September 8, 2025, “appellant was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced

to life with the possibility of parole.” Because the appellant has been convicted and

sentenced, he is no longer being confined pursuant to the indictment and is instead

confined pursuant to his conviction and the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the

State asserted that the appeal from the trial court’s denial of his pretrial habeas

application has been rendered 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, appellant’s underlying case has been

disposed by entry of judgment, the requested habeas relief has been mooted. See

Saucedo v. State, 795 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.)

(“Appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus entailed a challenge to the

2 legality of his original confinement. Appellant is no longer confined based on the

process underlying his original detention, but is now confined pursuant to judgment

and sentence . . . . Where the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by

subsequent developments, the legal issues raised thereunder are rendered moot.”);

see also Ex parte Pete, No. 01-22-00259-CR, 2022 WL 16985609, at *2 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 17, 2022, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) (“An appeal challenging the denial of a pretrial application for writ of

habeas corpus is rendered moot when the appellant is convicted of the underlying

offense before the appellate court rules on his appeal.”).

Because the case against appellant has been disposed of, “the premise of

[appellant’s] habeas corpus application is 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). Accordingly, we

grant the State’s motion and dismiss 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 Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.

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