Court Opinion

ID: 9406778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 17:09:02.863406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.202026
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued June 27, 2023

                                       In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                           First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-23-00117-CR
                               NO. 01-23-00118-CR
                            ———————————
                EX PARTE JONATHAN INGRAM, Appellant

                    On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                    Trial Court Case No. 1784181 & 1803439

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In each trial court cause, appellant Johnathan Ingram filed pretrial applications

for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the statute under which he was charged was

facially unconstitutional. The trial court denied the applications on January 19,

2023. Appellant filed notices of appeal on February 3, 2023.

      On March 3, 2023, appellant’s counsel filed motions to dismiss, contending

that appellant had pleaded guilty and no longer wished to prosecute the appeals. The
motions failed to comply with Rule 42.2(a) in that they did not include appellant’s

signature. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Because these motions did not comply with

Rule 42.2(a), the Court denied the motions.

      The clerk’s records and supplemental clerk’s records indicate that appellant

pleaded guilty in return for the State’s recommendation that punishment be set at

two years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. On February 8, 2023, the

trial court entered orders of deferred adjudication based on the plea bargain and

placing appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for two years.

      On May 25, 2023, the Court issued a notice that the appeals might be

dismissed as moot given that appellant had pleaded guilty and was no longer

confined on the charges for which he had sought habeas relief. See Ex parte Sewell,

495 S.W.3d 54, 55 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (observing that

appeal from denial of application for writ of habeas corpus is moot once appellant is

no longer confined on charge). Appellant filed no response to the notice.

      Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals as moot. Any pending motions are

dismissed as moot.

                                  PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.

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

                                           2