Ex Parte Tucker Church Shaw v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 20, 2023
• Docket: 01-22-00467-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 20, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00467-CR ——————————— EX PARTE TUCKER CHURCH SHAW

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 22-CR-0589

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Tucker Church Shaw, appeals the habeas court’s June 21, 2022

order on his pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking release on personal

bond pursuant to Article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Appellant’s habeas application asserted that (1) the State was not ready for trial

within ninety days of his detention and (2) he was entitled to be released on a personal bond because he could not afford to post bond in any amount. The habeas

court’s order denied appellant’s request for release on personal recognizance but

reduced appellant’s bail from $250,000 to $25,000.

On August 6, 2022, our Court ordered appellant to file a brief in this appeal

within 20 days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1. Our order required appellant’s brief to

address, among other things, the Governor’s order suspending Article 17.151 “to the

extent necessary to prevent any person’s automatic release on personal bond because

the State is not ready for trial.” The Governor of the State of Tex., Exec. Order No.

GA-13, March 29, 2020, 45 Tex. Reg. 2368, 2369 (2020). Appellant failed to file a

brief.

The underlying case was subsequently resolved by plea bargain agreement

and appellant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for the offense of

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Issues concerning pretrial release are moot

after a defendant is convicted. See Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1992) (holding that appeal challenging denial of pretrial application for

writ of habeas corpus becomes moot when appellant is convicted of underlying

offense and no longer subject to pretrial confinement); see also Henriksen v. State,

500 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Myres v. State, 866 S.W.2d 673 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d).

2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). Any

pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.

Do not publish.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