Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 24, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01490-CV
EX PARTE J.I.L., A MINOR
On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 417-70360-2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Francis
J.I.L. was accused of online impersonation. After the State filed a petition to adjudicate,
J.I.L filed an application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus which the trial court denied. J.I.L
appealed the trial court’s ruling to this Court. Two weeks later, J.I.L. waived his right to a jury
trial and pleaded true to the State’s allegations in the petition. The trial court adjudicated him
delinquent and placed him on one year probation. For the reasons set out below, we dismiss this
appeal.
In August 2014, the State filed an original petition for an adjudication, alleging J.I.L.
engaged in delinquent conduct. Specifically, the State alleged J.I.L. violated section 33.07 of the
Texas Penal Code by intentionally or knowingly using another juvenile’s persona or name to
create an Instagram account without her permission and posting a sexually explicit message on
the account. In response, J.I.L. filed an application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus, alleging he
was illegally restrained of his liberty by virtue of the “restrictive conditions of his release from
detention from the Collin County Juvenile Detention Facility and the oppressive burden of a
juvenile delinquency proceeding.” In his application, he asserted section 33.07 of the penal code
was unconstitutional and, as a result, the State’s petition should be dismissed. After the trial
court denied the relief requested, J.I.L. filed this appeal.
Two weeks after filing his notice of appeal, J.I.L. waived his right to a jury trial and
stipulated to the allegations made by the State, including that he violated section 33.07 of the
penal code. Following an adjudication hearing, the trial court found the State’s allegations were
supported by the evidence and were true. The trial court then concluded J.I.L. had engaged in
delinquent conduct as set out in the State’s petition and placed him on one year probation with
three months of “intensive supervision.” Although the trial court informed J.I.L. of his right to
appeal, he did not do so.
The writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary writ. Ex parte Groves, 571 S.W.2d 888,
890 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). While a writ of habeas corpus may be used to challenge any
unlawful restraint, it may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Ex parte Powell, 558 S.W.2d
480, 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Neither a trial court nor an appellate court should entertain an
application for writ of habeas corpus when there is an adequate remedy by appeal. Ex parte
Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Groves, 571 S.W.2d at 890. When
determining whether an issue is cognizable on habeas, we consider a variety of factors, including
whether the alleged defect would bring into question the trial court’s power to proceed. Ex parte
Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 619. A pretrial habeas should be reserved for situations in which the
protection of the applicant’s substantive rights or the conservation of judicial resources would be
better served by interlocutory review. Id. When the premise of a habeas corpus application is
“destroyed” by subsequent developments, the legal issues raised are rendered moot. Saucedo v.
–2–
State, 795 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex. App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.); see Ex parte Branch,
553 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).
Here, J.I.L. sought relief from what he alleged was an unlawful prosecution because of a
purportedly unconstitutional statute. However, shortly after he filed an appeal of the denial of
his request for habeas relief, he pleaded true to the allegations in the State’s petition and was
adjudicated delinquent. Because the case has gone forward to adjudication, the issue appellant
raised by pretrial habeas corpus is moot. Saucedo, 795 S.W.2d at 9; see Rodriguez v. State, No.
14-99-00158-CR, 1999 WL 588877, at *1 (Tex. App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (not
designated for publication) (appellant, who sought pretrial habeas relief challenging
constitutionality of statute, had adequate remedy at law by direct appeal; plea of nolo and
subsequent conviction rendered issue moot). Furthermore, J.I.L. raised an issue that was suitable
for consideration on direct appeal; his adequate remedy was a direct appeal of his adjudication.
Under these circumstances, we conclude we lack jurisdiction to consider the matter.
We dismiss this appeal.
141490F.P05
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE J.I.L., A MINOR On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District
Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-14-01490-CV Trial Court Cause No. 417-70360-2014.
Opinion delivered by Justice Francis,
Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered June 24, 2015.
–4–