MIGUEL ANGEL VASQUEZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 103rd District Court of Cameron County

NUMBER 13-04-00169-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MIGUEL ANGEL VASQUEZ, Appellant,

 

v.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant, Miguel Angel Vasquez, appeals from the trial court's denial of relief sought through pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

The State charged appellant with committing the offense of DWI on February 12, 2003 and alleged appellant had been previously convicted of misdemeanor DWI in 1997, 1989, and 1985. It appears that the State attempted to use these prior offenses to enhance the charged offense from a class B misdemeanor to a third degree felony under section 49.09(b)(2) of the penal code. Tex. Penal Code Ann. 49.09(b)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2006).

On April 24, 2003, appellant sought relief through an application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus, trial cause No. 2003-CR-176-D, on grounds that appellant never received notice that this Court affirmed his 1997 conviction. On February 24, 2004, the trial court denied appellant's application for writ of habeas corpus. On February 27, 2004, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's denial of the writ of habeas corpus, docketed in this court as cause No. 13-05-00010-CR.

On November 11, 2004, appellant was found guilty on the February 2003 driving while intoxicated charge. During the punishment phase of trial, the trial court found that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a finding that appellant was the same person as the one named in the previous convictions. Thus, the trial court refused to enhance appellant's sentence in its final judgment of conviction. (1)

Because appellant was subsequently convicted of the charged offense, his appeal of the trial court's ruling on his pretrial writ of habeas corpus is moot. Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Moreover, where the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal issues raised thereunder are rendered moot. Hubbard v. State, 841 S.W.2d 33, 33 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.). Thus, the State's failure to prove up appellant's prior convictions rendered appellant's attack on his 1997 conviction unnecessary. Additionally, we note that a formal application for writ of habeas corpus was never filed with this Court, thus indicating that appellant has abandoned his claim.

We dismiss the appeal as moot.

 

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

 

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 28th day of August, 2007.

1. Appellant has directly appealed from the trial court's final judgment of conviction, docketed in this Court as cause No. 13-04-00169-CR.