# Ex Parte Bohannan

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 11, 2011 · 350 S.W.3d 116

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783826

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Michael Wayne BOHANNAN, Applicant
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 11, 2011
- **Citations:** 350 S.W.3d 116; 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 618; 2011 WL 1775727
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Keller
- **Judges:** Johnson, Meyers, Price, Womack, Keasler, Hervey, Cochran, Keller
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783826

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- noting that when a habeas applicant is represented by counsel, the court may disregard his pro se submissions and take no action on them

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783826. Public record. Not legal advice.