Ex Parte William Joseph Horton ( 2009 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-09-00228-CR
EX PARTE WILLIAM JOSEPH HORTON
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2003-77-C2A
OPINION
William Joseph Horton appeals the denial of his pretrial application for writ of
habeas corpus which he filed in connection with the State’s motion to revoke his
community supervision. Horton contends in his sole point that the court erred by
denying his habeas application because his confinement was unlawful due to the capias
for his arrest having been issued before the revocation motion was filed. Because
Horton’s community supervision has since been revoked, we will dismiss this appeal as
moot.
The trial court signed the order denying Horton’s habeas application on July 8,
2009, and he timely perfected this appeal. However, his community supervision was
revoked on July 27 after a contested hearing.1 Because his community supervision has
been revoked, he is no longer subject to “pre-trial” confinement under the capias. Thus,
it appears that his habeas claim is moot. See Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1992); In re Soliz, No. 01-08-00877-CR, 2008 WL 5392029, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (not designated for
publication); Hubbard v. State, 841 S.W.2d 33, 33 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992,
no pet.).
The Clerk of this Court notified Horton that the appeal may be dismissed if he
did not file a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
44.3. By response, Horton cites Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006),
for the proposition that his appeal is not moot. We find Kniatt to be distinguishable. In
that case, Kniatt pleaded guilty and was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision pursuant to a plea bargain. Id. at 659-60. After the State filed a motion to
adjudicate, Kniatt filed a pre-conviction habeas application claiming that his guilty plea
was involuntary. Id. at 660. The trial court granted the motion to adjudicate and later
denied the habeas application. Id. at 660-62. On appeal, this Court reversed on the
merits of Kniatt’s habeas claim. See Kniatt v. State, 157 S.W.3d 83, 87 (Tex. App.—Waco
2005).
The State filed a petition for discretionary review, arguing first that the trial court
(and this Court) lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of Kniatt’s habeas claim. The
1
Horton’s appeal of the revocation order has been docketed in this Court under cause no. 10-09-
00258-CR.
Ex parte Horton Page 2
Court of Criminal Appeals held “that the jurisdiction of a court to consider an
application for writ of habeas corpus is determined at the time the application is filed.”
Kniatt, 206 S.W.3d at 663. Thus, the trial court had jurisdiction when Kniatt’s habeas
application was filed and did not lose that jurisdiction after adjudicating his guilt. Id. at
663-64.
Here, however, no one disputes that the trial court had jurisdiction when Horton
filed his habeas application and ruled on it. Rather, the issue in this case is whether the
habeas claim was later rendered moot by the revocation of Horton’s community
supervision because, at that point, he was no longer being incarcerated under what he
claimed to be an unlawful capias. Presiding Judge Keller explained in her concurring
opinion in Kniatt why (under Martinez) Horton’s habeas application is moot:
Martinez held that a conviction rendered moot a complaint regarding bail
because the defendant was “no longer subject to pre-trial confinement.”
Essentially, these types of claims apply only at certain stages of the
prosecution, and they disappear once the prosecution progresses past the
stage in question. By contrast, the habeas claim in the present case
purports to undermine the validity of the conviction, and so does not
disappear after conviction like complaints regarding probable cause or
bail.
Id. at 665 (Keller, P.J., concurring) (footnote omitted).
Horton’s habeas application challenges the validity of the capias under which he
was held before the revocation hearing. After his community supervision was revoked,
he was no longer being held on that capias but rather was being held on the court’s
revocation judgment. Thus, after revocation he was “no longer subject to pretrial
Ex parte Horton Page 3
confinement.” See Martinez, 826 S.W.2d at 620. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as
moot. Id.; Soliz, 2008 WL 5392029, at *1; Hubbard, 841 S.W.2d at 33.
FELIPE REYNA
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
(Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment and only to the extent it dismisses
this proceeding as moot. A separate opinion will not issue.)
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed November 10, 2009
Publish
[CR25]
Ex parte Horton Page 4