Eligah Darnell v. State ( 2010 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00208-CR
ELIGAH DARNELL APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
------------
Pursuant to rule of appellate procedure 50, we have reconsidered our
previous opinion upon reviewing Appellant Eligah Darnell’s petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 50. We withdraw our August 19, 2010
opinion and judgment and substitute the following.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Appellant Eligah Darnell filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas
corpus in cause number 1197285 on the basis of selective and vindictive
prosecution and double jeopardy. The trial court denied the requested the relief,
and Darnell filed his notice of this appeal. On May 28, 2010, the trial court
granted the State’s motion to dismiss cause number 1197285 on the ground that
Darnell had been convicted in a separate cause. ―Where the premise of a
habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal
issues raised thereunder are rendered moot.‖ Hubbard v. State, 841 S.W.2d 33,
33 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.). Just as an appeal
challenging the denial of a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus is
rendered moot when the appellant is convicted of the underlying offense before
the appellate court rules on the writ, see Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620
(Tex. Crim. App. 1992), the trial court’s dismissal of the very same cause from
which Darnell seeks habeas relief rendered moot the issues he raised in the
application. See Hubbard, 841 S.W.2d at 33–34 (dismissing appeal because
appellant’s conviction rendered issue raised in appeal from denial of pretrial
application for writ of habeas corpus moot); Ex parte Hodges, No. 02-02-00429-
CR, 2003 WL 21359331, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 12, 2003, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (same). Because the issues Darnell
raised in his application are moot—the underlying cause has been dismissed—
2
we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Martinez, 826 S.W.2d at
620 (dismissing appeal).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 9, 2010
3