recognizing that when a habeas applicant is represented by counsel, the court need not take action on pro se filings
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that when a habeas applicant is represented by counsel, the court need not take action on pro se filings
- holding that “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine was not satisfied because there was no reasonable expectation that the complaining party would be subjected to the same action again
- recognizing “capable of 8 repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness doctrine, but holding exception was not applicable to particular case
- noting that the court disregarded and took no action on a habeas corpus applicant’s pro se submissions because he was represented by counsel
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KELLER, P.J.,
concurring.
In Ex parte Cordova, a parolee was arrested on a parole revocation warrant, and new criminal charges were pending at the time. 1 There is no suggestion in our opinion in that case that the parolee was being confined on the new charges. 2 In the present case, however, appellant was being confined on the new charge. Whether that difference between the two cases is legally significant is a question to be resolved at another time because, as the Court correctly points out, this case is moot.
. Ex parte Cordova, 235 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim.App.2007).
. An examination of the writ file in Cordova shows that the new charges were in a different county than the county of confinement, the latter of which had issued the parole revocation warrant.