### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00278
- CR

Ex parte John D. Ferrara

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 3 OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 21-0498-C, THE HONORABLE MICHAEL KEASLER , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Jo h n D. Ferrara, acting pro se, filed this appeal from the trial court ’ s denial of relief on his “Application for Pre

- Indictment Habeas Corpus Relief Motion to Di [s] miss Prosecution.” 1 For the following reasons, we will dismiss this appeal as moot. On Apr i l 23, 2020, a Hays County magistrate issued a warrant commanding Ferrara ’ s arrest for the felony offense of stalking. See Tex. Penal Code § 42.072 . The probable

cause affidavit ac companying the warrant alleged that Ferrara committed the offense on or ab out April 15, 2020. Ferrara was arrested and booked on May 27, 2020, in Bexar County. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. art. 15.06 (providing that arrest warrant extend s to an y part of Texas and

1 Ferrara ’ s June 14, 2021 notice of appeal states that he is appealing from the judg[] ment of the trial court to not dismiss an arrest by felony warrant that has not been filed in Justic e C ourt, but was determined to not b e a fe lony by the Hays County District Attorney’s Office and the Travis County Attorney (Pro Tem) and therefore cause 20

- 2877 (filed in Hays County District Court), was referred to the County Court for relief; p er the Di str ict Court.2 may be exec uted in any Texas county ). Five days later, Ferrar a sec u re d his release f rom custody on a $20,000 su r e ty bond wit h the aid of a bail bondsman

. Ferrara filed his h abeas application o n April 14, 2021, in trial

- court cause number 21

- 0498

- C

. During the June 9, 2021 hea ring o n his a pplication , Ferrar a informed the tr ial cour t that h e was seeking to “ get off of bail bonds and dismiss the case. ” Ferrara stated that he had initially been on bail bonds for “ a felony, and then it was dropped down to a misdemeanor

— if they do file. ” Th e State di d not dispute Ferrar a ’ s a s se rtion that only misdem eanor char ges were being considered against him but noted that , under the applicable two

- year statute of limitations, the State still had time remaining to file such lesser charges , which it later did

. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ar t

. 12.02 ( requir ing filing of misde meanor charges within two years from date of commission of offense ). At the conclusion of the hearing, t he trial court stated that it would change Ferrara ’ s $20,000 surety bond to a $4,000 personal bond with a restrictio n a gainst contact with the victim

. S ee In re Tharp , 351 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2011 , no pet. ) ( contrasting personal b ond s with bail bond s by noting th at p ersonal bon d “ is a bond with no sureties or other security ” )

. Ferr ara stated that he had n o objection to or issue with th at

re strict ion. The trial court signed an orde r on July 29, 2021, denying Ferrara’s habeas application and motion to dismiss. 2 Meanwhile, o n July 14, 2021, a summons issued in trial

- court cause number 21

- 2259

- CR

- 1 instructi n g Ferrara to appear and answer for t he mis demeanor offense o f harassment

. See Tex. Penal Code § 42.07

. Ferrara was no t re

- arrested for th e harassm ent charge , and the trial court granted Ferrara ’ s waive r of an in

- person appear ance at his

2 Judge Michael E. K easler signed this order after Judge Linda Rodriguez issued her rul ing on the record during the habeas hearing.3 misdemeanor arra i gn ment

. The harassment charge again st Fer rara was later dismissed on the State ’ s motion , as shown by t he district court ’ s January 28 , 2022 order

. Th us, the harassment charge in cause number 21

- 2259

- CR

- 1 is no longer pending against Ferrara , and he has n o b on d obligations concerning this dis mis sed charge. See Apodaca Bail Bonds v. State , 720 S.W.2d 279 , 281 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 1986, no pet.) ( reversing judgment against bail

- bond company because

“ [o] nce the defendant was discharged, the obligation of [the su r ety] was terminated , ” even though d ef enda nt was later indicted on different charge ) ; see also Tex. Code Crim. P roc. art. 17.08(5) ( provi ding that s u reties on bail bond are no t bound after defendant is “ dismissed from the charge ” ). Ferr a ra then filed a n “ e m ergency motion to release unlawful restra int ” in this appeal, arguing that he must still report to a bail bon dsman under the original bail bond on his
arrest for stalking

. T here is no evidence that the surety has asse rted any s uch continuing duty under t h e original bail bond

. But even if the original bail bond had not been changed to a personal bon d, the State acknowledged that it was considering only misdemeanor charges and that it had two years to bring th em against Ferrara for the conduct leading to h i s arrest

. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. a rt. 12.02

. Th e two

- year limitations period expired on April 15, 202 2, without the filing of any charge besides the one for harassment that was ultimately dismissed. Thus, Ferrara has no remaining obligation to rep or t to a bondsman under the origina l bail bond

.

“ T he longstanding rule in Texas regarding habeas corpus is that ‘ where the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal issues raised there under are moot. ’ ” Ex pa rt e Guerrero , 99 S.W.3d 852, 853 (T ex. Ap p.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) ( quoting Bennet v. State , 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.))

. Here, b ecause Ferrara has been relieved of the requirem ent that he4 report to a b ai l bond sman , which was the basis f or his habeas application , his appeal complaining of the trial court ’ s ruling on that application is moot. See E x parte Sutherland , 451 S.W.2d 913 , 913

- 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) (dismissing habeas appeal as moot because St a te dismissed crimina l charges ) ; Ex par te Shapiro , 233 S.W.2d 859, 86 1 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1950) ( dismissing habeas appeal as moot because “ t he very thing he was complaining of in the habeas
corpus hearing has been remove d ” ). Accordingly, we dismiss this a pp e al as moot

. See Tex. R. App. P. 4 3

. 2 ( f)

.

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne , Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Ju s tices Kelly and Smith Dismissed as Moo t Filed: May 17, 2022 Do Not Publish