Aurelio Alvarado-Torres v. the State of Texas

NUMBERS 13-25-00514-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

AURELIO ALVARADO-TORRES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 24TH DISTRICT COURT
OF REFUGIO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron

Appellant Aurelio Alvarado-Torres was arrested and charged with several

offenses, including engaging in organized criminal activity. Appellant filed a pretrial

application for writ of habeas corpus asserting that, due to the State’s delay, he was

entitled to be released either on personal bond or by reducing the amount of bail required.

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 17.151 § 1(1). The trial court denied the application on
October 14, 2025, and appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant has since filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot because he is no

longer subject to pretrial detention. Appellant has informed this Court that, pursuant to a

plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to the organized criminal activity offense, the trial court

sentenced him to time served, he was transferred to the custody of the United States

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and he was deported to Mexico, where he

currently resides.

“The longstanding rule in Texas regarding habeas corpus is that where the premise

of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal

issues raised thereunder are rendered moot.” Bennet v. State, 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.); see also Ex parte Greenberg, No. 01-24-

00520-CR, 2025 WL 2773185, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 30, 2025, no

pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). For instance, a pretrial

application becomes moot when the appellant is convicted of the underlying offense and

is no longer subject to pretrial confinement. Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1992); see also Ex parte Greenberg, 2025 WL 2773185, at *1; Ex parte Pete,

No. 01-22-00259-CR, 2022 WL 16985609, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 17,

2022, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Once an appeal becomes

moot, we are generally required to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. Ex parte Huerta, 582

S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018, pet. ref’d) (“A court of appeals has no

jurisdiction to decide moot controversies and issue advisory opinions.”); see also Ex parte

Landry, No. 05-22-00181-CR, 2022 WL 3584633, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 22, 2022,

2
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“Subject to exceptions not applicable

to the current case, when habeas proceedings become moot, pending appeals must be

dismissed because appellate courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot controversies and

issue advisory opinions.”).

Because the case against appellant has been disposed of and he is no longer

subject to pretrial detainment, we grant his motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. See

Martinez, 826 S.W.2d at 620. The appeal is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

JENNY CRON
Justice

Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the
26th day of February, 2026.

3