Ex Parte Shawn Olali v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-26-00132-CR

___________________________

EX PARTE SHAWN OLALI

On Appeal from the 367th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 26-3948-367

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Shawn Olali, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal the trial court’s order denying his pretrial application for a writ of habeas corpus, which related to his pretrial confinement in trial court cause number CR-2025-01234-D. After he filed his notice of appeal, Olali was convicted in trial court cause number CR-2025-01234-D.

A pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus is appropriate only when granting relief would result in the applicant’s release. Ex parte Hammons, 631 S.W.3d 715, 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (quoting Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). Thus, “[a]n applicant must be restrained illegally to be entitled to relief.” Headrick v. State, 988 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Here, Olali’s conviction renders his application moot. See Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). We have no jurisdiction to decide moot controversies. Ex parte Huerta, 582 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we notified Olali of our concern that his appeal had become moot because he had been convicted. We warned him that the appeal would be dismissed unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Olali filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

Because we do not have jurisdiction to consider moot controversies, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Ex parte Harris,

3

Nos. 02-23-00154-CR, 02-23-00155-CR, 2023 WL 5767370, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 7, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 1 Per Curiam

Do Not Publish Tex.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

Delivered: August 13, 2026

1 Even if Olali’s conviction had not rendered his appeal moot, we still would not have jurisdiction over the appeal because it is apparent from the record that the trial court did not rule on the merits of Olali’s application. See Ex parte Mims, Nos. 02- 24-00324-CR, 02-24-00325-CR, 02-24-00326-CR, 2025 WL 647354, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 27, 2025, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (first citing Ex parte Villanueva, 252 S.W.3d 391, 394–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and then citing Ex parte Martinez, No. 04-22-00475-CR, 2024 WL 349311, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 31, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)).