Re Juan Angel Guerra ( 2014 )

NUMBER 13-14-00266-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE JUAN ANGEL GUERRA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1
Relator, Juan Angel Guerra, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and petition for
writ of habeas corpus in the above cause on May 12, 2014. The underlying proceeding
is a civil forfeiture case. Through eight issues, relator seeks to vacate several different
orders, including orders finding him in contempt, a writ of attachment, an order of
commitment, and a continued commitment order, on grounds that the trial court lacks in
personam jurisdiction over him.
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).
By order previously issued, this Court ordered the production of any information or
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege to be stayed. 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.”). The Court ordered all other relief requested by relator to
be carried with the case. The Court requested that the real parties in interest, the State
of Texas, receiver Fabian Limas Jr., and Samuel Longoria, or any others whose interest
would be directly affected by the relief sought, to file a response to the petition for writ of
mandamus. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
The State of Texas, acting by and through the County and District Attorney of
Cameron County, Texas, duly filed its response on May 30, 2014. According to the
State’s response, this original proceeding should be dismissed either because (1) relator
failed to join a necessary party to this proceeding, or alternatively, (2) this proceeding has
been rendered moot because the State has filed a motion requesting that the trial court
void and vacate all orders issued against relator. The State’s motion requests that the
trial court vacate the writ of attachment, the commitment order, and the continued
commitment order, and also requests that “any and all discovery requests as ordered by
this Honorable Court that were submitted upon Juan A. Guerra as a non-party be found
void and vacated.”
On or about June 9, 2014, the trial court granted the State’s motion and vacated
the writ of attachment, the commitment order and the continued commitment order issued
against relator. We conclude that this original proceeding is moot. See In re Kellogg
Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (“A case becomes moot if a
controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings . .
.”); State Bar of Texas v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) (stating that, for a
2
controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between the parties that
will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the response, is of the opinion that this matter has been rendered moot.
Accordingly, the Court LIFTS the stay previously imposed by this Court and DISMISSES
the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). This dismissal
is without prejudice.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
11th day of June, 2014.
3