Ex Parte Oscar Gamboa Quezada v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00868-CR

EX PARTE Oscar Gamboa QUEZADA

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 11369CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 27, 2023 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant, Oscar Gamboa Quezada, appeals from the denial of his pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the criminal charge against him based on an alleged violation of his state and federal rights to equal protection.

After Quezada filed his notice of appeal, the State filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charge against him. The trial court granted the State’s motion and dismissed the underlying criminal case against Quezada on September 27, 2023.

On November 1, 2023, we notified Quezada that this case appears to be moot and ordered him to file a response showing how the appeal is not moot. Quezada failed to respond to our order.

The dismissal of the charges against Quezada rendered his appeal from the denial of his pretrial habeas writ moot. See Ex parte King, No. 05-20-00781-CR, 2021 WL 5817329, at *1 (Tex.

04-23-00868-CR

App.—Dallas Dec. 7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ex parte Sewell, 495 S.W.3d 54, 55 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.); Darnell v. State, No. 02-10- 00208-CR, 2010 WL 5019589, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 9, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ex parte Hopkins, No. 05-96-00996-CR, 1997 WL 466521, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 15, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

Absent exceptions that are not applicable to this case, we have no jurisdiction to decide a moot controversy. See King, 2021 WL 5817329, at *1; Ex parte Huerta, 582 S.W.3d 407, 410–13 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018, pet. ref’d); Sewell, 495 S.W.3d at 55–57; Hopkins, 1997 WL 466521, at *1. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH