its discretion in dismissing [the post-conviction count for intoxication manslaughter] as a double jeopardy violation.” “Habeas corpus is by definition an extraordinary writ in which the restraint of one’s liberty is challenged as illegal.” Saucedo v. State, 795 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.). When “the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal, issues raised thereunder aré rendered moot.” State v. Golding, 398 S.W.3d 745, 747 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd) (quoting Saucedo, 795 S.W.2d at 9 and citing Ex parte Branch, 553 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex.Crim.App.1977)); see Ex parte Norvell, 528 S.W.2d 129, 131 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Ex parte Horton, 305 S.W.3d 200, 201 (Tex.App.—Waco 2009, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). We cannot give any opinion on the merits
holding that because defendants community supervision was revoked habeas challenge of community supervision was moot holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding that a challenge to the disbursement of attorneys fees was not equitably moot holding that universitys amendment of regulation made moot a challenge to regulations