Ex Parte Eduardo Santander-Jaimes ( 2022 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-22-00412-CR
Ex parte Eduardo Santander-Jaimes
FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY
NO. 2110-335, THE HONORABLE REVA TOWSLEE CORBETT, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Eduardo Santander-Jaimes was arrested for the felony offense of possession of
more than 400 grams of heroin with intent to deliver, and his bond was set at $250,000. See
Tex. Health & Safety Code §§ 481.102(2), .112(a), (f). After his arrest, Santander-Jaimes filed
in cause number 2110-335 a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus requesting that he
be released on personal bond or that the amount of his bond be reduced. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. art. 17.151, § 1(1). Following a hearing, the trial court granted relief by reducing
Santander-Jaimes’s bond to $150,000. Santander-Jaimes appealed the trial court’s order, arguing
that the trial court should have either lowered the bond even more or released him on personal
bond. Approximately one month after filing his notice of appeal, Santander-Jaimes filed in cause
number 2156-21 a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus seeking to be released on
bond or to have the amount of the bond further reduced. After reviewing the application, the
trial court issued an order reducing the bond to $25,000. Following that ruling, Santander-
Jaimes executed a bail bond for $25,000. Santander-Jaimes has filed a motion to dismiss this
appeal, asserting that the appeal is moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. We agree.
“A case becomes moot on appeal when the judgment of the appellate court can no
longer have an effect on an existing controversy or cannot affect the rights of the parties.” Jack
v. State, 149 S.W.3d 119, 123 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The mootness doctrine limits courts
to deciding cases where an actual controversy exists between the parties. See Ex parte Flores,
130 S.W.3d 100, 104-05 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, pet. ref’d). “It is axiomatic that a cause
becomes moot when the appellate court’s judgment cannot have any practical legal effect
upon a controversy.” State v. Garza, 774 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–
Edinburg 1989, pet. ref’d). “[W]here 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 pet.) (quoting Saucedo v. State,
795 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet)).
As set out above, this appeal challenges the propriety of the trial court’s order
in cause number 2110-335. However, that order has been supplanted by the new order in
cause number 2156-21, and the new order effectively granted the habeas relief Santander-Jaimes
was seeking. Cf. Ex parte Carter, 849 S.W.2d 410, 411 n.2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993, pet.
ref’d) (explaining that “Habeas Corpus proceedings are separate and distinct proceedings
independent of the cause instituted by the presentation of an indictment or other forms of the
State’s pleadings” and “should be docketed separately from the substantive cause and given a
different cause number”). Any judgment from this Court regarding the order in cause number
2110-335 would have no practical legal effect on any controversy between the parties. See
Bennet, 818 S.W.2d at 200. Accordingly, we conclude that this appeal is moot. Cf. Ex parte
Guerrero, 99 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (determining
2
that appeal of order lowering bond amount was rendered moot by court’s decision to further
reduce bond and by appellant posting reduced bond amount).
For these reasons, we grant Santander-Jaimes’s motion and dismiss this appeal
as moot.
__________________________________________
Thomas J. Baker, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Dismissed as Moot
Filed: September 15, 2022
Do Not Publish
3