Ex Parte Tyrone Amos v. the State of Texas
This text of Ex Parte Tyrone Amos v. the State of Texas (Ex Parte Tyrone Amos v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-23-00173-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
EX PARTE TYRONE AMOS
On appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order denying his application for pretrial writ of
habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. Appellant
has filed a response stating that he agrees that the appeal is moot. We dismiss the appeal
for want of jurisdiction.
Appellant was indicted for one count of intoxication manslaughter and two counts
of intoxication assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.07, 49.08. Appellant later filed an application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus arguing he was entitled to be released on
personal bond or have his bail reduced because the State was not ready for trial within
ninety days of his detention. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.151. The trial court
subsequently signed an order releasing appellant on a personal recognizance bond and
ordered the conditions of his bond to include an alternative incarceration program and a
remote alcohol monitoring device.
A case is moot when there is no justiciable controversy between the parties or
when the parties lack a legally recognizable interest in the outcome. State ex rel. Best v.
Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2018). “We are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions,
the distinctive feature of which is that it decides an abstract question of law without binding
the parties.” Tucker v. State, 136 S.W.3d 699, 701 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.);
see TEX. CONST. art. II, § 1; Perez v. State, 938 S.W.2d 761, 764 (Tex. App.–Austin 1997,
pet. ref’d). Accordingly, if a case becomes moot, we must dismiss the case for want of
jurisdiction. Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). Because
appellant has been granted all the relief he seeks in his application for pretrial writ of
habeas corpus, there is no longer a justiciable controversy in the present appeal, and we
lack subject matter jurisdiction. See id.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the State’s motion, appellant’s
response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that this appeal has been rendered
moot. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion to dismiss, and we dismiss the appeal for
want of jurisdiction. We further dismiss appellant’s motion for immediate release on
pretrial writ of habeas corpus as moot.
2 L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the 4th day of January, 2024.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ex Parte Tyrone Amos v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-tyrone-amos-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.