Ex parte Joyner, 367 S.W.3d 737

Joyner, pro se, filed a pretrial habeas petition challenging the Sex Offender Registration Statute as void for vagueness.
After filing the notice of appeal, Joyner was tried and convicted of theft in appeal No. 14-11-00807-CR.
The court took judicial notice of its records in the related appeal to identify Joyner.
Joyner’s restraint relates to a separate theft conviction, not the failure-to-register charges in the habeas petition.
The majority held pretrial habeas moot because imprisonment on another offense would not allow release or dismissal of the current charge.
Dissent argued the pretrial writ could bar prosecution and should not be mooted by Joyner’s imprisonment for another offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Joyner’s pretrial writ is moot due to imprisonment on another offense	Joyner argues the writ can bar prosecution despite imprisonment	Majority holds mootness applies because release is unlikely	Mootness affirmed for pretrial aspects except potential third-category relief under certain circumstances
Whether the court properly identified Joyner as the same person in related case	Joyner challenges identity assumption	Majority accepts identity based on name, birth date, SPN, and shared offenses	Identity assumption accepted; related-records judicial notice proper for this purpose
Whether a facial challenge to the Sex Offender Registration Statute can be pursued pretrial while imprisoned	Statute facially void; challenges prosecution	Pretrial writ limited to certain challenges; majority permits facial challenge	Facial challenge recognized as potential basis for pretrial relief under limits

Turner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (allows judicial notice of related records in similar proceedings)
Goodson v. State, 221 S.W.3d 303 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007) (notes about judicial notice of related records; no pet.)
Ex parte Doster, 303 S.W.3d 720 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (pretrial habeas may be limited when relief would not yield immediate release)
Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (mootness when pretrial issues do not affect release)
Danziger v. State, 786 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (mootness principles in pretrial writs)
Bennet v. State, 818 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991) (issues rendered moot by developments)
Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d 797 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (limits on pretrial writs; categories of relief)
Pittman v. State, 321 S.W.3d 565 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (considerations on use of amicus/attached records)
Ex parte Preston, 833 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (double jeopardy context for pretrial writs)
Coronado v. State, 148 S.W.3d 607 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (va gueness as applied to reporting statute)
Ex parte Preston, 801 S.W.2d 604 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990) (re-indictment and double jeopardy considerations)