Ex Parte Christian Rodriguez ( 2018 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-18-00368-CR
NO. 03-18-00369-CR
Ex parte Christian Rodriguez
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. D-1-DC-17-300294 & D-1-DC-17-300295,
THE HONORABLE P. DAVID WAHLBERG, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In each of these cases, appellant Christian Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal from the
trial court’s denial of his pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus in which he sought a bond
reduction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 11.08, 11.24.
It is well established that a written and signed appealable order is a prerequisite to
invoking this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1); State v. Rosenbaum,
818 S.W.2d 398, 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W.3d 678, 685 n.32 (Tex.
App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d); Ortiz v. State, 299 S.W.3d 930, 933 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009,
no pet.); State v. Cox, 235 S.W.3d 283, 285 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); see also State
v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (noting that “precedent requires that
an order be in writing”). No such order appears in the record in either of these cases.
Ordinarily in a case in which there has been a ruling but no written order has been
entered, we would treat the notice of appeal as prematurely filed, abate the appeal, and remand the
case to the trial court for preparation of an appealable order. See Alexander v. State,
No. 03-13-00337-CR, 2014 WL 3562719, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 18, 2014, no pet.) (mem.
op., not designated for publication); Dewalt, 417 S.W.3d at 685 n.32; State v. Rollins, 4 S.W.3d 453,
454 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.); see also Tex. R. App. P. 27.1(b) (prematurely filed
notice of appeal in criminal case is effective and deemed filed on same day appealable order is
signed by trial court); Tex. R. App. P. 44.4(b) (requiring appellate court to direct trial court to correct
remediable error that prevents proper presentation of appeal). In these cases, however, there is an
additional jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured.
While this appeal was pending, the cases for which appellant was subjected to pretrial
confinement have been disposed of.1 Because appellant is no longer subject to pretrial confinement
in either of these cases, the appeals of the trial court’s ruling on appellant’s pretrial application for
writ of habeas corpus have been rendered moot, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider them.
See Ex parte Tucker, 3 S.W.3d 576, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620,
620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Armendarez v. State, 798 S.W.2d 291, 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990);
Alexander, 2014 WL 3562719, at *1; Ex Parte Foster, No. 02-11-00075-CR, 2012 WL 42934, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 5, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication);
Ex parte Guerrero, 99 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
1
The clerk’s record in appeal number 03-18-00368-CR (trial court number
D-1-DC-17-300294) contains the trial court’s order, signed on June 8, 2018, dismissing the case
because appellant has been convicted in another case. The clerk’s record in appeal number
03-18-00369-CR (trial court number D-1-DC-17-300295) contains a judgement of conviction,
entered on June 8, 2018, convicting appellant of aggravated sexual assault and sentencing him to
confinement for 20 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
2
Considering that we would lack jurisdiction in these appeals even if the records had
included a signed written order, it would be an unwarranted waste of judicial resources to now abate
these appeals and remand these cases to compel the trial court to sign a written order memorializing
its ruling denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, under these
particular circumstances, we decline to abate the appeals and instead proceed with our disposition
of them. We dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
__________________________________________
Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: June 14, 2018
Do Not Publish
3