NO. 12-14-00140-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JEFFREY EDWARD ALLEN, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 3RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jeffrey Edward Allen appeals his sentence for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle.

He presents one issue on appeal. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of evading arrest or detention with 

a vehicle, a third degree felony. The indictment also included a felony enhancement paragraph. 

Appellant entered an open plea of “guilty” to the offense charged. Appellant and his counsel 

signed a document entitled “Felony Agreed Plea Recommendation” in which Appellant swore 

and judicially confessed that he committed each and every element of the offense alleged in the 

indictment. Appellant also pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraph. The trial court 

accepted Appellant’s plea of guilty, found sufficient evidence to support the guilty plea, 

adjudged Appellant guilty of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, found the enhancement 

paragraph to the “true,” and assessed Appellant’s punishment at fifteen years of imprisonment. 

The trial court also ordered that Appellant’s sentence run concurrently with the sentence for his 

conviction of burglary of a habitation. This appeal followed.
2

PUNISHMENT

In his sole issue on appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support 

his conviction for burglary of a habitation (trial court cause number 31319) and, if so, the 

sentence for his conviction of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle should be reformed or 

remanded to the trial court. The record shows that the State and Appellant agreed that any 

punishment for his evading arrest conviction would not exceed the punishment for his burglary 

of a habitation conviction, that the sentences for both convictions would be equal, and that the 

sentences would run concurrently. However, in Allen v. State, No. 12-14-00129-CR, 2015 WL 

1478198, at *4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 31, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (not designated for 

publication), this court determined that the evidence is legally sufficient to support Appellant’s 

conviction for burglary of a habitation and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 

The requirement that an action present a “live controversy” is an essential component of 

subject matter jurisdiction. State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994). If at 

any stage of the proceeding there ceases to be an actual controversy between the parties, a case 

becomes moot. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). When 

the appeal presents no actual controversy, the appeal is dismissed as moot. See Fouke v. State, 

529 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (dismissing appeal as moot because defendant 

voluntarily paid fine and costs complained of in appeal); Laney v. State, 223 S.W.3d 656, 659 

(Tex. App.—Tyler 2007, no pet.) (stating generally that appeals presenting no actual controversy 

are dismissed as moot). Here, Appellant’s basis for appeal is that if the evidence supporting his 

burglary of a habitation conviction is insufficient, this court should order reformation or remand 

for resentencing in this case. Because we held the burglary of a habitation conviction is 

supported by legally sufficient evidence, Appellant presents no actual controversy in this appeal. 

See Smith v. State, 848 S.W.2d 891, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d). 

Therefore, the appeal is moot.

DISPOSITION

Having determined that Appellant presents no actual controversy, we dismiss Appellant’s 

appeal as moot.
3

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered April 30, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 22, 2015

NO. 12-14-00140-CR

JEFFREY EDWARD ALLEN,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 3rd District Court 

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 31247)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be 

dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot; and that this decision be certified to 

the court below for observance.

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.