in Re the State of Texas, Ex Rel. Bernard W. Ammerman ( 2013 )

NUMBER 13-13-00293-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. BERNARD W. AMMERMAN
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
and Writ of Prohibition.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
By petition for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition, relator, the State of
Texas ex rel. Bernard W. Ammerman, the Willacy County and District Attorney, sought
to compel the respondent in this cause, the Honorable Angelica Hernandez, the
Presiding Judge of the 105 Judicial Court serving Nueces, Kleberg, and Kenedy
Counties, to dismiss a temporary ex parte protective order and to prohibit the
1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
respondent from entering a protective order against relator. Upon being notified of the
respondent’s recusal, on July 11, 2013, this Court abated this original proceeding in
order to provide the successor judge the opportunity to consider the rulings at issue in
this original proceeding. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(a). The Court requested that
the successor judge file a supplemental record including the rulings on reconsideration
within twenty-one days. The Court also informed the parties that this proceeding would
be reinstated on further order of this Court.
On September 12, 2013, after an extension of time was sought and obtained, the
supplemental record was filed with this Court. The supplemental record includes an
order rendered on September 10, 2013, by the successor judge, the Honorable Richard
C. Terrell, vacating the temporary ex parte protective order at issue in this cause.
On September 13, 2013, relator filed a motion to dismiss this petition for writ of
mandamus and writ of prohibition because the order subject to review herein has been
vacated.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus, the supplemental record, and the motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that
this original proceeding has been rendered moot. See Jack v. State, 149 S.W.3d 119
n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (“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.”); Chacon v. State, 745 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. Crim. App.
1988) (noting that "generally a cause, issue or proposition is or becomes moot when it
does not, or ceases to, rest on any existing fact or right").
2
Given the foregoing, we REINSTATE this original proceeding. We LIFT the stay
previously imposed by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or
modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally
decided.”). We GRANT relator’s motion to dismiss and we DISMISS this original
proceeding as moot.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
19th day of September, 2013.
3