Opinion
03-23-00087-CR
08-21-2024
The State of Texas, Appellant v. Ryan Shackelford, Appellee
Do Not Publish
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 22-03702-3, THE HONORABLE DOUG ARNOLD, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
The State appeals an order revoking a term of community supervision, contending that the 225-day sentence imposed on Ryan Shackelford is illegally long. Shackelford contends that the challenge to his sentence is moot because he has completed his sentence. We dismiss this appeal as moot.
Shackelford pleaded guilty to terroristic threat of family violence, which the judgment expressly classified a Class A misdemeanor, committed on or about August 21, 2022. By judgment dated September 30, 2022, the trial court imposed sentence of 365 days in jail and a $4,000 fine. The court suspended the sentence for an 18-month term of community supervision. The court did not expressly and separately find that Shackelford committed family violence.
On November 7, 2022, the State moved to revoke Shackelford's term of community supervision for violations alleged to have occurred on October 3, 2022. An arrest warrant was served on Shackelford in jail on November 9, 2022. The motion was amended on December 8, 2022, to include violations alleged to have occurred on October 28, 2022.
At a January 20, 2023 hearing, the trial court found true two allegations that Shackelford contacted the mother of his child in violation of the terms of his community supervision. The court revoked Shackelford's community supervision and assessed sentence at 225 days in jail with credit for 105 days of time served. The court alluded to other cases for which Shackelford had been jailed and discussed tailoring the sentence in this case with his bond eligibility in the other cases, making his release on bond in "about a week" conditioned on admission into a treatment facility. In the written order in this case, the court struck through a proposed affirmative finding that Shackelford committed family violence in the course of the offense charged. Shackelford was released from Williamson County Jail on January 28, 2023.
In his brief, Shackelford speculates that the sheriff gave him good-conduct credit sufficient to warrant release on the 225-day sentence with credit for 105 days served. That is consistent with discussion at the revocation hearing from the court that the 105 days served would count as 210 days, which would have allowed him to be released from jail on the day of the hearing. The court reasoned that a 225-day sentence "should get us around a week to get this placement in the Utah facility done. Once the case-once that sentence expires, then he's free to bond out, and a condition of bond is placement in the facility."
The State filed its notice of appeal on February 7, 2023. The State has limited grounds on which it can appeal in criminal cases; one of those grounds is that the sentence imposed is illegal. Tex. Penal Code § 44.01(b). The State complains here that Shackelford's sentence is illegal because the trial court's striking of the finding of family violence rendered his conviction a Class B misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 180 days. See id. §§ 12.21-.22 (setting maximum jail time for Class A misdemeanors at one year, Class B misdemeanors at 180 days), 22.07 (defining terroristic threat). The State contends that the 225-day sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for a Class B misdemeanor and was thus illegal. The State also argues that the law is unclear regarding whether an enhancement element of a misdemeanor offense should be found at the guilt/innocence or the punishment phase of trial.
In May 2023, the State filed a petition for writ of mandamus "challenging several actions by the trial court in the underlying criminal proceeding, including the trial court's failure to include an affirmative finding of family violence in the final judgment of conviction"; this Court denied that petition. See In re the State of Texas ex rel. Hobbs, Williamson Cnty. Attorney, No. 03-23-00277-CV, 2023 WL 4565996, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin July 18, 2023, orig. proceeding).
Shackelford argues that the State's appeal to reduce his sentence is moot because he served the challenged sentence and was discharged from jail before this appeal was perfected. His argument is supported by holdings that complaints about prison time credits are rendered moot by a complete discharge from confinement, control, and supervision, as are complaints about whether sentences should have been served concurrently or consecutively. The reporter's record shows the trial court's intention that its sentence be fully served within a week after the January 20, 2023 revocation hearing, and the clerk's record includes notice of Shackelford's release from jail on January 28, 2023. Shackelford argues that none of the exceptions to mootness-i.e., collateral consequences, public interest, or the capability of the error to be repeated and evade review-apply on the facts of this case. The State did not counter the mootness argument.
Ex parte Canada, 754 S.W.2d 660, 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); see also Campbell v. State, No. 03-11-00658-CR, 2013 WL 6805585, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin Dec. 20, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Stout v. State, 908 S.W.2d 552, 553 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).
The State's appeal is moot. "If a case becomes moot, the parties lose their standing to maintain their claims, and the court loses jurisdiction to consider them." State v. Golding, 398 S.W.3d 745, 747 n.2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd). We cannot consider the State's sub-issues regarding the trial court's non-finding and its effect on the offense's classification and permissible sentence or about the phase of trial in which an enhancement finding must be made.
We dismiss this appeal as moot.
Dismissed as Moot.