What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the appeal of the habeas denial as moot because the defendant had already been convicted and was no longer in pretrial custody.

Who is affected by this decision?

Appellant Terran Doral Green and the parties in his related criminal case; the decision resolves only the appeal of the pretrial habeas denial, not the underlying conviction.

What happens next in the criminal case?

The criminal conviction and its direct appeal (filed separately by appointed counsel) proceed; the habeas-appeal dismissal does not decide the conviction appeal.

Can this dismissal be appealed?

The dismissal is a final ruling on the habeas-appeal issue; further challenge would depend on whether any justiciable relief remains, but the record notes a separate pending direct appeal from the conviction.

Ex Parte Terran Doral Green v. the State of Texas

Docket 01-26-00204-CR

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Habeas CorpusDismissed

Filed: Apr 14, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Habeas Corpus
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 01-26-00204-CR

Appeal from denial of a pro se pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus in a criminal matter

Summary

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.

Issues Decided

Whether an appeal of the denial of a pretrial habeas corpus application remains justiciable after the defendant has been convicted and is no longer in pretrial confinement
Whether the trial court's handwritten denial of a pro se habeas application is properly the subject of an appeal

Court's Reasoning

The court applied the principle that an appeal of a pretrial habeas denial becomes moot if the appellant is no longer subject to the pretrial confinement the writ would remedy. Because the trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced the defendant after the habeas denial, there was no longer a live controversy about pretrial custody. Without a live controversy, the court lacked a basis to provide relief and therefore dismissed the appeal as moot.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31TEX. R. APP. P. 31
Martinez v. State826 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)
Ex parte GravesNo. 14-19-00517-CR, 2019 WL 3822177 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 15, 2019, no pet.)

Parties

Appellant: Terran Doral Green
Judge: Panel: Chief Justice Adams; Justices Guerra and Guiney

Key Dates

habeas application filed: 2025-09-24
trial court denial of habeas: 2026-02-24
notice of appeal filed: 2026-02-24
judgment of conviction signed: 2026-03-04
opinion issued: 2026-04-14

What You Should Do Next

1
Proceed with direct appeal of conviction
Appellant's appointed counsel should continue to pursue the pending direct appeal from the March 4, 2026 conviction in case number 01-26-00332-CR.
2
Consider post-conviction remedies if appropriate
If issues remain that could affect the conviction or sentence, counsel may consider filing a post-conviction writ or other motions available under Texas law.
3
Monitor and withdraw moot motions
Any pending motions related solely to the pretrial habeas appeal should be withdrawn or noted as moot; parties should ensure the record accurately reflects the disposition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed the appeal of the habeas denial as moot because the defendant had already been convicted and was no longer in pretrial custody.
Who is affected by this decision?: Appellant Terran Doral Green and the parties in his related criminal case; the decision resolves only the appeal of the pretrial habeas denial, not the underlying conviction.
What happens next in the criminal case?: The criminal conviction and its direct appeal (filed separately by appointed counsel) proceed; the habeas-appeal dismissal does not decide the conviction appeal.
Can this dismissal be appealed?: The dismissal is a final ruling on the habeas-appeal issue; further challenge would depend on whether any justiciable relief remains, but the record notes a separate pending direct appeal from the conviction.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Opinion issued April 14, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00204-CR
———————————
EX PARTE TERRAN DORAL GREEN, Appellant

On Appeal from the 180th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1914201

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Terran Doral Green is attempting to appeal from the trial court’s

February 24, 2026 denial of his pro se application for writ of habeas corpus

challenging his pretrial confinement for the offense of aggravated assault of a public

servant. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

Although represented by counsel in the trial court, appellant filed a pro se

application for writ of habeas corpus on September 24, 2025, alleging a limitations
issue. The trial court did not hold a hearing but denied it by a handwritten ruling on

the last page of the application and dated February 24, 2026. On February 24, 2026,

appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his

application.

The denial of an application for writ of habeas corpus is appealable. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 31. But because appellant has been convicted of the underlying offense1

and is no longer subject to pretrial confinement, his appeal is moot. See Martinez v.

State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Ex parte Graves, No. 14-19-

00517-CR, 2019 WL 3822177, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 15,

2019, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Any pending motions are

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1
On March 4, 2026, the trial court signed the judgment of conviction for the offense
of aggravated assault against a public servant and was sentenced to life in the
Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a notice of appeal from the conviction and that
appeal is pending in this Court in case number 01-26-00332-CR.
2