Ex Parte Robert Joseph Yezak v. the State of Texas
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.
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was revoked for failing to comply with the bond conditions, he filed a pretrial application for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Do Not Publish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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.