Crawford v. Campbell

6 Citing cases

  1. Dulin v. State

    NO. PD-0856-19 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2021)

    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.

  2. Dulin v. State

    620 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)   Cited 177 times
    Holding that the pendency of an appeal stops the clock for the purposes of the time-payment fee

    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.

  3. Ex parte Cypress Creek EMS

    NO. 01-16-00523-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 8, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    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).

  4. Ex parte Davis

    506 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. App. 2016)   Cited 5 times

    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.

  5. Ex Parte Rinkevich

    222 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. App. 2007)   Cited 18 times
    Discussing writ application initially filed in Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals being transferred to Dallas County Criminal Court and jurisdiction was proper

    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.

  6. Ex Parte Rinkevich

    No. 05-06-01506-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 8, 2007)

    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.