Ex Parte Shakeal Montrey Mozon

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-21-00315-CR
EX PARTE SHAKEAL MONTREY MOZON
From the 66th District Court
Hill County, Texas
Trial Court No. F311-21
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Shakeal Montrey Mozon was charged by indictment with sexual assault of a child.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2). Bail was set at $250,000. Mozon filed a pre-trial
application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court asserting that his bail was excessive
and requesting reasonable bail. After a hearing, the trial court denied Mozon’s habeas
application. Mozon appealed.
On January 5, 2022, counsel for Mozon filed a “Motion to Withdraw Notice of
Appeal and Dismiss Appeal.”1 In this document, counsel indicated that, on December
1Although styled as a motion to dismiss, counsel’s January 5, 2022 motion is not signed by Mozon.
Thus, the motion does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), which requires that both
“appellant and his or her attorney must sign the written motion to dismiss and file it in duplicate with the
21, 2021, Mozon pleaded guilty to the charged offense of sexual assault of a child.
Counsel further argued that, as a result of the guilty plea, Mozon’s appeal from the denial
of his habeas application regarding the amount of bail is now moot.
A case that is moot is normally not justiciable. See Pharris v. State, 165 S.W.3d 681,
687-88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). As such, the mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding
cases in which an actual controversy exists. See Ex parte Flores, 130 S.W.3d 100, 104-05
(Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, pet. ref’d). “When there has ceased to be a controversy
between the litigating parties which is due to events occurring after judgment has been
rendered by the trial court, the decision of the appellate court would be a mere academic
exercise and the court may not decide the appeal.” Id. at 105. “The longstanding rule in
Texas regarding habeas corpus is that where the premise of a habeas corpus application
is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal issues raised thereunder are moot.”
Ex parte Guerrero, 99 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (per
curiam) (internal citations & quotations omitted).
In Martinez v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a conviction rendered
moot a complaint regarding bail because the defendant was “no longer subject to pre-
trial confinement.” 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); see Kniatt v. State, 206
appellate clerk, who must immediately send the duplicate copy to the trial court clerk.” TEX. R. APP. P.
42.2(a). However, this is of no consequence because Mozon has pleaded guilty to the charged offense,
which, as we conclude above, mooted his appeal from the denial of his habeas application regarding the
amount of bail.
Ex parte Mozon Page 2
S.W.3d 657, 665 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Keller, P.J., concurring) (“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.”).
Because Mozon has pleaded guilty to the charged offense and is no longer subject
to pre-trial confinement, we conclude that Mozon’s appeal is moot. See Martinez, 826
S.W.2d at 620; Ex parte Guerrero, 99 S.W.3d at 853; see also Kniatt, 206 S.W.3d at 665. As
such, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
STEVE SMITH
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed January 12, 2022
Do not publish
[CR25]
Ex parte Mozon Page 3