Court Opinion

ID: 9375631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 15:08:32.386229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:00.428043
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                     NO. 03-22-00634-CR

                                  Ex parte Angel Rey Perez

                 FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
           NO. C2022-1690X, THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

              Appellant Angel Rey Perez seeks to appeal the trial court’s denial of his pretrial

application for writ of habeas corpus challenging the amount at which his bond was set. See

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 11.08, 11.24. Perez was charged with five counts of smuggling of

persons with a firearm, and bond was set at $100,000 for each count. See Tex. Penal Code

§ 20.05(b)(1)(D).

              On January 4, 2023, the State filed an amended motion to dismiss 1 the appeal as

moot, asserting that while the appeal was pending, Perez was convicted and sentenced pursuant

to a plea agreement. At this Court’s direction, the district clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s

record containing judgment forms reflecting that Perez had pleaded guilty and had been

sentenced to ten years’ confinement for each count. Because Perez has been convicted and

sentenced, he is no longer subject to pretrial confinement, and his appeal challenging the amount

       1  Although the State titled its motion “Motion to Dismiss Appeal—Supplemental,” we
construe it as an amended motion to dismiss. The motion was substantively identical to the
State’s earlier “Motion to Dismiss Appeal” but included copies of Perez’s judgment forms,
which the State asserts were not yet available at the time it filed the original motion.
of pretrial bond has been rendered moot. See Ex parte Tucker, 3 S.W.3d 576, 576 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1999); Danziger v. State, 786 S.W.2d 723, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Armendarez

v. State, 798 S.W.2d 291, 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Oldham v. State, 5 S.W.3d 840, 846

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d); Ex parte Valero, No. 03-16-00859-CR,

2017 WL 3897264, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 24, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated

for publication). Accordingly, we grant the State’s amended motion and dismiss the appeal as

moot. Any additional pending motions are likewise dismissed as moot.

                                            __________________________________________
                                            Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Dismissed as Moot

Filed: February 28, 2023

Do Not Publish

                                               2