It is axiomatic that an appeal or original proceeding is moot when the appellate court's ruling cannot have any practical legal effect upon a controversy. See Armendarez v. State, 798 S.W.2d 291, 291 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Ex parte Clay, 479 S.W.2d 677, 677 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); In re HEB Grocery Co., L.P., No. 14–10–00270–CV, 2010 WL 1790881, at *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] May 6, 2010, orig. proceeding [mand. denied] ) (mem. op., per curiam); In re Guerra, No. 13–08–00745–CV, 2009 WL 91743, at *1 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Jan.15, 2009, orig. proceeding); State v. Garza, 774 S.W.2d 724, 727–28 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd); Houston Indep. School Dist. v. Houston Teachers Assoc., 617 S.W.2d 765, 766–67 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ). If this court were to order respondent to conduct a hearing on relator's 2004 pretrial motions, this order would have no practical legal effect because respondent has no jurisdiction to hear these motions and granting these motions would have no effect on relator's final conviction for aggravated robbery.
Appellant's complaint that the trial court refused to release him on personal bond prior to trial, ground of error number four, is moot, since appellant has now been convicted of the offense, for which the punishment exceeds fifteen years. Art. 44.04(h), V.A.C.C.P.; Ex Parte Contella, 485 S.W.2d 910, 912, (Motion for Rehearing) (Tex.Cr.App. 1972); Ex Parte Clay, 479 S.W.2d 677 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972). In his fifth ground of error, appellant complains that the Court refused to allow him personally to consult with the defense witnesses.
As authority for dismissal, the State cites three cases in which courts have held that after conviction a pretrial application for reduction in bond is moot. See Henriksen v. State, 500 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Ex parte Clay, 479 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972; Smith v. State, 848 S.W.2d 891, 893 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd). We have found no authority, nor has the State cited any, that holds appellant must file another application for writ of habeas corpus if the State re-indicts him for the same charge. A habeas corpus proceeding is to secure discharge of one restrained of his liberty.
State v. Garza, 774 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). It is accordingly equally axiomatic that the issue of bail being set on a complaint is a moot issue after an appellant is convicted. See, e.g., Henriksen v. State, 500 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Ex parte Clay, 479 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972). We find that the merits of this issue are not before this Court.
State v. Garza, 774 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd). It is accordingly equally axiomatic that the issue of bail being set on a complaint is a moot issue after an appellant is convicted. See, e.g., Henriksen v. State, 500 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Ex parte Clay, 479 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972). We find that the merits of this issue are not before this Court.