With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that a challenge to the disbursement of attorneys fees was not equitably moot
B: holding that because defendants community supervision was revoked habeas challenge of community supervision was moot
C: holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired
D: holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended
B.