Opinion
02-23-00028-CR
05-04-2023
Marcellus Walker, Appellant v. The State of Texas
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1631224D
Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dana Womack Justice
Appellant Marcellus Walker attempts to appeal the trial court's "Order Setting Bail." On March 21, 2023, we notified Walker of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal because the trial court has not entered any appealable orders. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam) (holding that a court of appeals generally only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a judgment of conviction); see also Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding that courts of appeal lack jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals of pretrial orders regarding excessive bail or denial of bail). We informed Walker that we could dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response by March 31, 2023, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 43.2(f), 44.3.
While waiting to receive Walker's response to our jurisdiction letter, we received the trial court's judgments of conviction indicating that Walker had pleaded guilty to the two underlying counts of trafficking a child to engage in sexual offenses, that the trial court had found him guilty of both counts, and that the trial court had sentenced him to nine years' confinement on both counts to run concurrently. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 20A.02(a)(7). Thus, because Walker has been convicted of the underlying counts, his appeal regarding bail is now moot. See Ex parte Tucker, 3 S.W.3d 576, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ("The appellant having been tried during the pendency of this appeal, the question of his pre[]trial bond is moot."); Armendarez v. State, 798 S.W.2d 291, 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (holding that an issue regarding pretrial bail was moot because the appellant was legally confined pursuant to a conviction in the underlying case); Ex parte Madurai, No. 02-19-00158-CR, 2019 WL 3955220, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Aug. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing as moot appeal of order denying application for writ of habeas corpus complaining of trial court's bail ruling where applicant was convicted of underlying offense during pendency of appeal). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Madurai, 2019 WL 3955220, at *1.
We did not receive any response from Walker to our jurisdiction letter.