Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 04-21-2019
Case Style:
Timothy Patrick Lee v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 11-18-00344-CR
Judge: PER CURIAM
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.
Court: Eleventh Court of Appeals
Plaintiff's Attorney: Philip Mack Furlow, District Attorney
Defendant's Attorney: David G. Rogers
Description:
Market Your Practice In Ten Counties for $10 A Month
Click Here For Cost Effective Affordable Internet Marketing For Your Practice
This is an appeal from an order denying Timothy Patrick Lee’s motion for appeal bond. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.04(g) (West 2018); TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. After abating this case for a hearing in the trial court, we received notice from Appellant that he was scheduled to be released from custody on March 21, 2019. Appellant asserted that there is no reasonable explanation for continuing this appeal concerning his appeal bond. Appellant is essentially asserting that the appeal is now moot. See Shockley v. State, 717 S.W.2d 922, 923 (Tex. Crim.
2
App. 1986) (dismissing an appeal concerning bail on appeal because the matter was moot). On April 3, 2019, after this appeal was reinstated, this court issued a letter to the parties in which we set out the following: A threshold question in any case is whether the court has jurisdiction over the pending controversy. See State v. Roberts, 940 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies. See Ex parte Preston, 533 S.W.2d 820, 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). Based upon our review of the record, we agree that this appeal is now moot. Accordingly, this appeal will be dismissed in ten days for want of jurisdiction unless a party files a document showing that the appeal is not moot. The parties have not filed any response to this court’s letter.
Outcome: Accordingly, for the reasons set out in this court’s April 3, 2019 letter, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: