Martinez v. State
| Decision Date | 25 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 611-91,611-91 |
| Parties | Apolonio Joseph MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael B. Charlton (on appeal only), Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Alan Curry, Dan Rizzo and Luci Davidson, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Perry
...courts but also district attorneys. See Tex. Const. art. V, §§ 1, 21.72 See Weise, 55 S.W.3d at 619–20 (citing Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (citing Danziger v. State, 786 S.W.2d 723, 724 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (per curiam) (bail)); Ex parte Robinson, 641 S.W.2d at......
-
Weise v. State
...1994). 9. Robinson, 641 S.W.2d at 555. 10. Ex parte Keller, 595 S.W.2d 531, 532-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). 11. Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (citing Danzinger v. State, 786 S.W.2d 723, 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (per curiam)) (bail); Robinson, 641 S.W.2d at 5......
-
Ex parte Joyner, 14–11–00618–CR.
...720, 724 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). Therefore, Joyner's contentions pertaining to pre-trial confinement are moot. See Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); and Danziger v. State, 786 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). See also Bennet v. State, 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex.App.-Houston [......
-
Victorick v. State (Ex Parte Victorick)
...because upon his conviction the habeas applicant is no longer being subjected to pre-trial confinement. See e.g., Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). Unlike a habeas claim concerning pre-trial bail in which the applicant seeks relief from an unconstitutional pre-tria......