the merits of these motions — were rendered moot by that order and are revived by this Court’s vacating the new trial order. Therefore, the majority’s opinion effectively deciding those motio ial while retaining jurisdiction over the proceedings necessarily mooted the pending motions for entry of judgment on the verdict and entry of JNOV. Under the mootness doctrine, this Court has no jurisdiction to render a judgment and opinion granting or denying either of those mooted motions. Upon this Court’s vacating the trial court’s order granting a new trial in response to this mandamus petition, the trial court still retains jurisdiction over the case until entry of final judgment in that court. See In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227, 230-32 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). The judgment rendered by this Court,
holding that a resentencing court may reconsider a defendants criminal history category as long as the appellate court did not expressly or implicitly limit  the remand to only a portion of the sentence holding that this court may reconsider an erroneous ruling as long as the appeal is current holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages recognizing that a reviewing court should not reconsider credibility determinations made by the alj as long as they find some support in the record holding trial court has jurisdiction to reconsider new trial order as long as case is pending