Court Filings

The Fourth Department dismissed as moot Anthony Flowers's appeal from a CPLR article 78 judgment that had sought to annul the Parole Board's denial of parole. The court explained the challenged parole determination expired while the appeal was pending and the Board later denied Flowers a subsequent parole request, removing any live controversy. The court also found that the exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply and therefore affirmed dismissal without reaching the merits of the underlying parole decision.

The court dismissed Devoris Antoine Newson’s attempted appeal from the trial court’s verbal denial of his pretrial habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court found no written order ruling on the habeas application in the record, and Texas law requires a written order to invoke appellate jurisdiction in habeas matters. The court also noted the underlying criminal charge was dismissed after Newson filed his habeas application, rendering the pretrial habeas petition moot. Because Newson did not show cause why the appeal should proceed, the court dismissed the appeal and any pending motions as moot.

The court dismissed Devoris Antoine Newson’s attempted appeal from the trial court’s verbal denial of his pretrial habeas application for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court explained that an oral pronouncement is not appealable absent a signed written order, and the record contained no written ruling. The court also noted the underlying criminal charge was dismissed after Newson filed his habeas application, rendering the habeas petition moot. Because there was no appealable written order and the case was dismissed, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal and any pending motions as moot.

The court dismissed Devoris Antoine Newson’s attempted appeal of a pretrial habeas corpus ruling for lack of jurisdiction. Newson sought review after an oral denial of his pretrial writ under Texas law, but no written trial-court order appears in the record. The court also found the issue moot because Newson entered a plea bargain, was tried and convicted, and therefore the pretrial relief he sought (including bail reduction) could no longer be granted. Because there was no appealable written order and the matter is moot, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed William Penn Dixon’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the intermediate appellate court lacks original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters. Dixon had asked the court to order the trial court to act, hold a hearing, suppress evidence, and dismiss pending criminal charges alleging an illegal search. The court explained that jurisdiction to hear original criminal habeas petitions rests with the Court of Criminal Appeals, district courts, county courts, or judges in those courts, so the appellate court could not grant the requested relief and dismissed the filing for want of jurisdiction.

The court denied Sterling Robinson’s request for a writ of mandamus seeking an order that Judge Jaiza N. Page vacate his criminal judgment. Robinson argued the trial court’s judgment was void because he withdrew his consent to the proceedings. The magistrate recommended and the court agreed that a criminal judgment is not a “consent judgment” and that a defendant’s alleged refusal or withdrawal of consent does not deprive a common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction over felony charges. Because Robinson failed to allege a clear legal right or a clear legal duty owed by the judge, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas resolved two related proceedings brought by John D. Ferrara challenging a trial-court denial of his first amended application for post-conviction habeas relief. The court dismissed Ferrara’s direct appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court did not issue a merits-based writ or hold an evidentiary hearing before signing the denial. The court also denied Ferrara’s petition for writ of mandamus because he failed to show entitlement to extraordinary relief — he did not establish a clear ministerial duty by the trial court or that he lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

The First District of Texas dismissed Terran Doral Green’s appeal of the trial court’s February 24, 2026 denial of his pro se pretrial habeas application as moot. Green, who had filed a pro se habeas application challenging a limitations issue while represented in the trial court, was denied in a handwritten ruling. By the time of appeal, he had been convicted and sentenced (judgment signed March 4, 2026), so he was no longer in pretrial confinement. Because the habeas relief sought was tied to pretrial release, the court concluded there was no live controversy and dismissed the appeal and any pending motions.

The Tenth Court of Appeals dismissed Thomas Dione Moore's petition seeking mandamus relief because the challenged district court (the 20th District Court of Milam County) lies outside the geographic jurisdiction of the Tenth Court. The court explained it lacks writ jurisdiction to issue mandamus against a court located in a different appellate district under the cited statutory provisions, and therefore the petition cannot proceed in this court. The opinion was delivered April 9, 2026.

The Tenth Appellate District of Texas dismissed Louis Benjamin Vargas's appeal from a municipal court judge's denial of a habeas corpus petition because the court lacked jurisdiction. Vargas had pleaded no contest to a speeding complaint, paid the fine and costs, and filed his appeal in this appellate court instead of the statutorily required county court at law. The Court explained that appellate review of municipal court judgments lies in the county court at law unless the fine exceeds $100 and the county court affirms or the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute, neither of which applied here.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ethan Frederick Hill’s appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.072 because his notice of appeal was untimely. Hill filed a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 306a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming late receipt of the trial court’s December 1, 2025 order. The court held the civil-rule extension does not apply to criminal appeals from article 11.072 denials, the applicable deadline was 30 days under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Hill’s notice was filed late, so the court lacked jurisdiction and denied the extension motion.

The Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed Jeremy Richards’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging three pending criminal cases. The court held his claims (false arrest, police and prosecutorial misconduct, due-process violations, double jeopardy, and judicial bias) are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and the petition had multiple procedural defects: failure to attach commitment papers, naming an improper respondent (a judge), and failing to provide the required inmate account certification. Because of these substantive and procedural deficiencies, the court dismissed the petition sua sponte and ordered Richards to pay costs.