Opinion
04-24-00198-CR 04-24-00199-CR
05-01-2024
EX PARTE Liam Malik MCCORMICK
From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2024W0138, 2024W0139 Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding
ORDER
LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA, JUSTICE
On April 25, 2024, appellant filed a letter we construe as a motion to consolidate appeal numbers 04-24-00198-CR and 04-24-00199-CR. Due to the similarities between the two cases, we agree they should be consolidated for briefing and argument in the interest of efficiency. We therefore order the motion to consolidate granted.
The parties must file all motions, briefs, and other documents as if the two appeals were one case but put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. See Tex. R. App. 9.3(a). The records for the two appeals shall remain separate, and if supplementation of a record becomes necessary, the supplemental material must be filed in each appeal to which it applies. However, the cases must be argued together in one brief as in a single appeal. If oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be argued as a single appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a party in a single appeal. The court will dispose of the entire case with the same judgment, opinion, and mandate.
The records are now complete, and a review of them indicates these are appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief. Appellant filed pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus, asserting he had been unlawfully restrained and requesting he should be released on personal bond. On March 19, 2024, the trial court considered appellant's applications and denied the relief requested. Appellant then filed notices of appeal, and thereafter, on April 16, 2024, supplemental clerk's records were filed. The supplemental records contained orders signed on April 16, 2024, granting appellant the relief requested in each application and ordering his release on personal bond.
"Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and is available only when there is no other adequate remedy at law." Ex parte Cruzata, 220 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). "The longstanding rule in Texas regarding habeas corpus is that where the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal issues raised thereunder are rendered moot." Bennet v. State, 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ) (internal quotations omitted); see also Ex parte Sifuentes, 639 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2022, pet. ref d). "A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to decide moot controversies and issue advisory opinions." Ex parte Huerta, 582 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2018, pet. ref d).
Here, the relief requested in appellant's original applications has now been granted and appellant is no longer subject to confinement, making his appeals appear moot. We therefore order appellant to file a written response by May 16, 2024 explaining why these appeals should not be dismissed as moot. Failure to timely respond and show how this court has jurisdiction will result in a dismissal of these appeals. If supplemental clerk's records are required to demonstrate our jurisdiction, appellant must (a) ask the trial court clerk to prepare the records, and (b) notify this court such a request was made. We further order all other appellate deadlines suspended until further order of this court.