Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00300-CR
Jose Miguel ROMO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 11, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 469039
The Honorable Tommy Stolhandske, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 8, 2015
DISMISSED AS MOOT
Appellant pled nolo contendere to the offense of indecent exposure. After he filed a pro se
notice of appeal, his counsel timely filed a motion for new trial. In the motion, counsel claimed
appellant did not understand the nature of his plea or its consequences. Accordingly, counsel asked
the trial court to grant a new trial. On June 1, 2015, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed in this
court. In that supplemental clerk’s record is an order signed by the trial court granting appellant’s
motion for new trial. In light of the trial court’s order, we ordered appellant to file a response
showing cause as to why we should not dismiss the appeal as moot. We advised appellant that if
04-15-00300-CR
he did not file a timely, satisfactory response, we would dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 43.2(f). Appellant did not file a response.
Pursuant to Rule 21.1, a “new trial” is defined as the rehearing of a criminal action after
the trial court has, on the defendant’s motion, set aside a finding or verdict of guilt. TEX. R .APP.
P. 21.1(a). The granting of a motion for new trial restores a case to its position before the original
trial and, therefore, renders any appeal moot. See id. R. 21.9(b).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Id. R. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-