Id. The holding in Fouke has been followed more recently by two courts of appeals. Ex parte Rinkevich, 222 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); Crawford v. Campbell, 124 S.W.3d 778, 780-81 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). In Cody v. State, the Court distinguished Fouke.Cody involved a defendant who was convicted of driving while intoxicated, sentenced to thirty days in jail probated for six months, and assessed a fine and court costs.
Id. The holding in Fouke has been followed more recently by two courts of appeals. Ex parte Rinkevich , 222 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) ; Crawford v. Campbell , 124 S.W.3d 778, 780-81 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). In Cody v. State , the Court distinguished Fouke .Cody involved a defendant who was convicted of driving while intoxicated, sentenced to thirty days in jail probated for six months, and assessed a fine and court costs.
See City of El Paso v. Alvarez, 931 S.W.2d 370, 379 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, orig. proceeding) (citing Ex parte Calhoun, 91 S.W.2d 1047, 1048 (Tex. 1936)) (concluding filing of complaint in municipal court, without more, did "not confine the defendant or restrain her liberty in any manner"); see also Ex parte Davis, 506 S.W.3d 150, 152 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2016, no pet.) (citing Crawford v. Campbell, 124 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); Dahesh v. State, 51 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd)) (concluding, even had applicant for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus proved insurance rates rose or he had lost status in community as result of conviction, such changes did not constitute confinement or restraint).
Even if he had proved that his insurance rates had risen or that he had lost status in the community, and that the change was caused by his conviction, these changes do not constitute confinement or restraint as contemplated by applicable law. SeeCrawford v. Campbell , 124 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (embarrassment and the possibility of losing a promotion do not rise to the requisite level of serious collateral consequences); Dahesh v. State , 51 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (denial of expunction petition does not constitute confinement or restraint). In his brief, Appellant references his motion for rehearing in this court in cause number 12-15-00082-CR.
Moreover, it is well settled that voluntarily paying the fine in a misdemeanor case renders the appeal from the judgment moot. See Crawford v. Campbell, 124 S.W.3d 778, 780 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (citing Fouke v. State, 529 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975)). Therefore, appellee is not entitled to relief under article 11.09.
Moreover, it is well-settled that voluntarily paying the fine in a misdemeanor case renders the appeal from the judgment moot. See Crawford v. Campbell, 124 S.W.3d 778, 780 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) ( citing Fouke v. State, 529 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975)). Therefore, appellee is not entitled to relief under Article 11.09.