Ex Parte Robert Joseph Yezak v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 3, 2026
Docket03-25-00459-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Ex Parte Robert Joseph Yezak v. the State of Texas (Ex Parte Robert Joseph Yezak v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Robert Joseph Yezak v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00459-CR

Ex parte Robert Joseph Yezak, Appellant

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. FR82355, THE HONORABLE DEBBIE GARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OP INION

Appellant Robert Joseph Yezak was charged with the third-degree felony offense

of driving while intoxicated third or more. Tex. Penal Code §§ 49.04, .09(b)(2). After his bond

was revoked for failing to comply with the bond conditions, he filed a pretrial application for

writ of habeas corpus seeking to be released on a personal bond. After holding a hearing, the

trial court denied relief. Yezak appeals this ruling.

While this appeal was pending, the State moved to dismiss the charged offense in

this case pursuant to a plea bargain in which Yezak pleaded guilty in a separate case. The trial

court granted that motion and signed an order dismissing the underlying cause. Thus, Yezak is

no longer subject to pretrial confinement for the charged offense and the appeal of the trial

court’s ruling on his pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus has been rendered moot. See

Ex Parte Sewell, 495 S.W.3d 54, 55 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (dismissing

habeas appeal after State dismissed underlying charge in exchange for guilty plea in separate case); see also Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (dismissing petition

for discretionary review of denial of bond reduction after habeas applicant was convicted of

underlying offense because he was “no longer subject to pre-trial confinement”). We therefore

lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Hung Dasian Truong v. State, 580 S.W.3d 203, 211

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction when appeal

became moot). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 3, 2026

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Martinez v. State
826 S.W.2d 620 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Ex parte Sewell
495 S.W.3d 54 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ex Parte Robert Joseph Yezak v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-robert-joseph-yezak-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2026.