Shockley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Shockley v. State

717 S.W.2d 922, 1986 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1284

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedSeptember 24, 1986

Docket112-85

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 717 S.W.2d 922 (Shockley 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

Shockley v. State, 717 S.W.2d 922, 1986 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1284 (Tex. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

ONION, Presiding Judge.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review was granted to consider whether the [923]*923Dallas Court of Appeals correctly sustained the trial court’s decision to raise the bond on appeal of appellant’s conviction for burglary of a building from $10,000 to $50,000. Said bond was raised after a hearing on the State’s written motion to deny bail on appeal at which appellant was represented by both of his attorneys. At the hearing the State orally moved that if requested denial of bail on appeal was overruled the trial court increase the bail on appeal to $250,-000. The appellant objected to the oral motion of the State to increase bail on appeal because the motion was not in writing and no notice had been given appellant. The trial court stated it could increase the bond on its own motion and increased the bond to $50,000. The Court of Appeals held that the court increased the bond on its own motion under Article 44.04(d), V.A. C.C.P., and that when exercising such authority the court is not required to give the defendant either notice or a hearing.

On original submission it was observed that the appellant’s burglary conviction was reversed on appeal by the Dallas Court of Appeals in their Cause No. 05-84-00952-CR and that the State filed its petition for discretionary review. Upon motion to this Court bond was set at $10,000 under Article 44.04(h), Y.A.C.C.P. The issue presented in the instant case was thus held to be moot, and appellant’s petition for discretionary review was ordered dismissed.

In the State’s motion for rehearing complaint was made that this Court, in dismissing the petition because the issue raised was moot, had erred in ruling in effect on the merits of the petition.

We agree that some of the language used in the opinion on original submission was inappropriate to a dismissal of the petition on the grounds of mootness. Such opinion is hereby withdrawn. The issue of bail on appeal is moot, and appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed without comment on the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

ONION, Presiding Judge.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review was granted to consider whether the [923]*923Dallas Court of Appeals correctly sustained the trial court’s decision to raise the bond on appeal of appellant’s conviction for burglary of a building from $10,000 to $50,000. Said bond was raised after a hearing on the State’s written motion to deny bail on appeal at which appellant was represented by both of his attorneys. At the hearing the State orally moved that if requested denial of bail on appeal was overruled the trial court increase the bail on appeal to $250,-000. The appellant objected to the oral motion of the State to increase bail on appeal because the motion was not in writing and no notice had been given appellant. The trial court stated it could increase the bond on its own motion and increased the bond to $50,000. The Court of Appeals held that the court increased the bond on its own motion under Article 44.04(d), V.A. C.C.P., and that when exercising such authority the court is not required to give the defendant either notice or a hearing.

On original submission it was observed that the appellant’s burglary conviction was reversed on appeal by the Dallas Court of Appeals in their Cause No. 05-84-00952-CR and that the State filed its petition for discretionary review. Upon motion to this Court bond was set at $10,000 under Article 44.04(h), Y.A.C.C.P. The issue presented in the instant case was thus held to be moot, and appellant’s petition for discretionary review was ordered dismissed.

In the State’s motion for rehearing complaint was made that this Court, in dismissing the petition because the issue raised was moot, had erred in ruling in effect on the merits of the petition.

We agree that some of the language used in the opinion on original submission was inappropriate to a dismissal of the petition on the grounds of mootness. Such opinion is hereby withdrawn. The issue of bail on appeal is moot, and appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed without comment on the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 S.W.2d 922, 1986 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shockley-v-state-texcrimapp-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack