Ex Parte Rudy Garza v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: May 7, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00233-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-25-00232-CR No. 02-25-00233-CR ___________________________

EX PARTE RUDY GARZA

On Appeal from the 371st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 0557466, 0557468

Before Birdwell and Wallach, JJ; Taylor, J.1 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

1 The Honorable Christopher Taylor, Judge of the 48th District Court of Tarrant County, sitting by assignment of the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to Section 74.003(h) of the Government Code. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003(h). MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 1994, Appellant Rudy Garza was indicted on two charges of aggravated

sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.021(a)(1)(B). He was then adjudged

mentally incompetent to stand trial and ordered committed. Several years later, Garza

was released from commitment and discharged to a group home, where he remained

until 2023.

In February 2023, Garza was arrested after he failed to appear for a specialty-

docket setting. He filed a pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking his

immediate release and return to the group home, and the trial court ordered Garza

released to the group home and imposed conditions for him to abide by while living

there. After certain portions of the cases were referred to a magistrate for decision,

the magistrate signed an order amending Garza’s conditions of release.

Garza was arrested again in December 2024 for alleged violations of the

conditions of his release. He then filed two pretrial petitions for writ of habeas corpus

seeking to be released from confinement. The magistrate denied Garza’s first petition,

dismissed his second petition, and then signed an order amending Garza’s conditions

of release and re-releasing him to a different group home. The trial court later made

the magistrate’s orders the decree of the court.

Garza then filed these appeals. During the pendency of these appeals, the State

moved the trial court to dismiss the indictments against Garza, citing “[p]rosecutorial

discretion.” The trial court granted the State’s motion and signed an “Order of

2 Dismissal” in both trial court cause numbers. The State then filed in this court an

unopposed motion to dismiss these appeals as moot and provided copies of the trial

court’s orders dismissing the cases against Garza.2

Pretrial habeas relief is an “extraordinary remedy.” Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d

71, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). It provides a speedy and effective adjudication of a

person’s right to liberation from illegal restraint. Ex parte Kerr, 64 S.W.3d 414, 419

(Tex. Crim. App. 2002). A defendant subject to the conditions of his pretrial release

or bond is restrained in his liberty, and that restraint must be reasonable. See Ex parte

Robinson, 641 S.W.2d 552, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1982). Thus, the

defendant may challenge the manner of his pretrial restraint, including any conditions

attached to his release or bond. See Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005).

However, “[w]here the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by

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

Darnell v. State, No. 02-10-00208-CR, 2010 WL 5019589, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth Dec. 9, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh’g, not designated for publication)

(quoting Hubbard v. State, 841 S.W.2d 33, 33 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992,

no pet.)). For example, the trial court’s dismissal of the very same cause from which a

defendant seeks habeas relief renders moot the issues he raised in the application. Id.

2 The State has certified that Garza does not oppose the motion to dismiss.

3 Because the indictments against Garza have been dismissed, he is no longer

subject to pretrial confinement for the charged offenses or to any current restraint on

his liberty. These appeals are therefore moot. See Ex parte Cole, No. 14-25-00313-CR,

2025 WL 2451093, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 26, 2025, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (granting State’s motion to dismiss and

dismissing appeal of pretrial writ of habeas corpus because trial court’s dismissal of

indictment rendered appeal moot); Ex parte King, No. 05-20-00781-CR, 2021 WL

5817329, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 7, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication) (same); Darnell, 2010 WL 5019589, at *1 (same).

Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and dismiss the appeals as moot. See

Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: May 7, 2026