Full text
in Re Benito Hinojosa
NUMBER 13-18-00646-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE BENITO HINOJOSA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria1 Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras2
Relator Benito Hinojosa filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to compel the trial court to (1) grant relator’s motion for a record in forma pauperis, and (2) order the court reporter and district clerk to furnish relator with the appellate record at no cost to relator or his family. Relator has now filed a motion to dismiss this original proceeding on grounds that it has been rendered moot.
The Court, having examined and fully considered this original proceeding 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”). Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss and we dismiss this original proceeding and all pending motions as moot.
DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 17th day of January, 2019.
Footnotes
[1] The Honorable Nelda V. Rodriguez, former Justice of this Court, did not participate in this decision because her term of office expired on December 31, 2018. In accordance with the appellate rules, she was replaced on panel by Justice Nora L. Longoria. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.1(a).
[2] 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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); Id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).