Martinez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Martinez v. State

826 S.W.2d 620, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 55, 1992 WL 55270

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 25, 1992

Docket611-91

StatusPublished

Cited by111 cases

This text of 826 S.W.2d 620 (Martinez v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 55, 1992 WL 55270 (Tex. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

BAIRD, Judge.

Applicant was originally charged with capital murder but subsequently indicted for murder. Applicant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court seeking release from jail. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 17.151. The trial judge ordered applicant released on a $10,000.00 personal bond. However, before applicant was released, the State charged applicant with aggravated robbery with bail set at $30,000.00. It is undisputed that the alleged aggravated robbery arose from the same transaction as that alleged in applicant’s murder indictment. Applicant filed a second application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to art. 17.151. The trial judge denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Martinez v. State, 810 S.W.2d 428, 430 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist] 1991).

We granted applicant’s petition for discretionary review wherein he contends the State violated art. 17.151 by charging applicant with aggravated robbery, thereby effectively preventing his release from jail. Applicant has been convicted of the underlying offense and is no longer subject to pre-trial confinement. Therefore, applicant’s petition is moot and we will not address the merits of his petition. See, Danziger v. State, 786 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). Accordingly, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed. 1

1

. Our decision today is not to be taken as constituting approval or disapproval of the Court of Appeals opinion,

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

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

BAIRD, Judge.

Applicant was originally charged with capital murder but subsequently indicted for murder. Applicant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court seeking release from jail. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 17.151. The trial judge ordered applicant released on a $10,000.00 personal bond. However, before applicant was released, the State charged applicant with aggravated robbery with bail set at $30,000.00. It is undisputed that the alleged aggravated robbery arose from the same transaction as that alleged in applicant’s murder indictment. Applicant filed a second application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to art. 17.151. The trial judge denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Martinez v. State, 810 S.W.2d 428, 430 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist] 1991).

We granted applicant’s petition for discretionary review wherein he contends the State violated art. 17.151 by charging applicant with aggravated robbery, thereby effectively preventing his release from jail. Applicant has been convicted of the underlying offense and is no longer subject to pre-trial confinement. Therefore, applicant’s petition is moot and we will not address the merits of his petition. See, Danziger v. State, 786 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). Accordingly, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed. 1

1

. Our decision today is not to be taken as constituting approval or disapproval of the Court of Appeals opinion,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

826 S.W.2d 620, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 55, 1992 WL 55270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-state-texcrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack