Court Opinion

ID: 9890809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 15:09:31.172729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:24.124464
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued October 12, 2023

                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                               NO. 01-18-01014-CR
                            ———————————
                  EX PARTE CAMERON MICHAEL MOON

                   On Appeal from the 182nd District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 1467534A

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In December 2008, a juvenile court waived jurisdiction over 16-year-old

Cameron Michael Moon (“Moon”) and certified him to stand trial as an adult in

criminal district court for the charged offense of murder. After a jury convicted him

and assessed his punishment at 30 years’ imprisonment, Moon appealed. This Court

held that the juvenile court abused its discretion in waiving jurisdiction over Moon,
vacated the criminal district court’s judgment, and dismissed the case. See Moon v.

State, 410 S.W.3d 366, 378 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013), aff’d, 451

S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). On the State’s petition for discretionary review,

the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this Court’s judgment. See Moon v. State,

451 S.W.3d 28, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

      On remand, the juvenile court again waived jurisdiction over Moon, who was

then over the age of 18, and recertified him to stand trial as an adult in criminal

district court for the same charged offense of murder. Moon filed a motion to

dismiss and an application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus with the criminal

district court, both of which the district court denied.

      Moon appealed the district court’s denial of his application for a pretrial writ

of habeas corpus. In our original opinion, this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial

of the pretrial writ of habeas corpus. On rehearing, we reversed the criminal district

court’s order denying Moon’s application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus, and

we remanded the matter to the criminal district court with instructions to enter an

order granting Moon’s pretrial writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the case for lack

of jurisdiction. Ex parte Moon, 649 S.W.3d 700, 720−21 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2022).

      The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State’s petition for discretionary

review to consider three issues related to the juvenile court’s second transfer order,

                                           2
including whether this Court erred in holding that Moon’s challenge was cognizable

in pretrial habeas, and it raised a fourth ground on its own motion. See Ex parte

Moon, 667 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023).               The Court ultimately

concluded that Moon’s “appeal from the pretrial habeas corpus application in this

case constitutes a ‘criminal law matter’” and that this Court lacked authority to

entertain his appeal. The Court held that

      given former [Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] Article 44.47(b)’s
      history and plain import, any purported appeal of the district court’s
      pretrial habeas corpus order relating to the juvenile court’s transfer
      order in this case was without authority. The court of appeals should
      not have entertained [Moon’s] appeal but should have simply dismissed
      it as premature—under former Article 44.47(b).

Id. at 801 (holding that former Article 44.47 “limits a defendant’s appeal, of any

kind, that challenges the validity of a juvenile court’s transfer order solely to the

context of criminal post-conviction (or post-deferred adjudication) appellate

review”). The Court thus reversed our judgment and remanded the case for this

Court “to issue an order dismissing the appeal as unauthorized under former Article

44.47.” Id. at 85.1

      Pursuant to the Court’s directive, we dismiss this appeal “as unauthorized

under former [Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] Article 44.47.” See TEX. CODE

1
      Moon filed a motion for rehearing of the Court’s opinion which the Court denied on
      September 13, 2023. Justice Newell filed a dissenting opinion to the denial of
      rehearing, in which Justices Richardson and Walker joined.
                                            3
CRIM. PROC. art. 44.47(b) (repealed by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., ch. 74 (S.B. 888), § 4,

p. 1066, eff. Sept. 1, 2015).

                                 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Hightower, and Rivas-Molloy.

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

                                           4