Court Opinion

ID: 9961943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 08:10:32.063132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:37.090672
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued April 16, 2024

                                       In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                          First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-23-00746-CR
                            ———————————
                    REBECCA ANN OLDAKER, Appellant
                                         V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 78th District Court
                           Wichita County, Texas1
                   Trial Court Case No. DC78-CR2020-1063

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

1
     Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas
     transferred this appeal to this Court. See Misc. Docket No. 23–9079 (Tex. Sept. 26,
     2023); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (authorizing transfer cases); TEX.
     R. APP. P. 41.3.
       Appellant Rebecca Ann Oldaker appealed the trial court’s judgment and

sentence of July 20, 2023. On January 20, 2024, she filed her brief, challenging only

the trial court’s assessed costs. The State filed an Unopposed Motion for Limited

and Temporary Abatement asking this Court to abate the appeal to provide the State

an opportunity to file a motion in the trial court requesting that the court waive the

assessment of the challenged court costs. We granted the motion and abated the

appeal. Subsequently, the trial court granted the State’s Unopposed Motion for the

Waiver of Court Costs. The State then filed in this Court an Unopposed Motion for

Lift of Abatement and for Briefing Extension stating that given the trial court’s

ruling, the appeal should be deemed moot. We granted the State’s motion, lifted the

abatement, and requested a response from Appellant. Appellant filed a response,

stating that “she agrees with the State that the appeal is now moot.” No opinion has

issued in this appeal.

      We dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2, 43.2(f). We deny

all other pending motions as moot.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                           2