Ex Parte Tucker Church Shaw v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

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Do not publish.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).
3