Rahman, Ziyad v. State













In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________



NO. 01-02-00727-CR

_________________





EX PARTE ZIYAD RAHMAN , Appellant



On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 916,996



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ziyad Rahman's, plea before the court to the misdemeanor charge of harassment invoked a deferred adjudication with conditions of community supervision. Subsequently, on May 2, 2002, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant's guilt. After a hearing, the trial judge adjudicated appellant's guilt, fined him $200 and assessed a 180-day sentence, which the court probated for 18 months. As a condition of community supervision, appellant served five days in jail.

On June 26, 2002, the trial court, for no apparent reason, and without any notification to appellant, amended appellant's conditions of community supervision, ordering him to serve an additional 15 days' confinement beginning July 3, 2002. Once in jail, appellant filed an application for habeas corpus relief. On July 5, 2002, after two days of incarceration, appellant was granted a hearing on his application. The county court judge denied relief.

On July 8, appellant filed a similar application seeking the same relief from a district court. This relief, likewise, was denied and appellant was remanded to custody. Appellant appealed this decision and executed an appeal bond to secure his release from custody. Two days after the district judge's ruling, on July 11, 2002, the county court judge rescinded his incarceration order.

On appeal, appellant asserts he is entitled to a review of the trial court's actions because the court's conduct has collateral legal consequences. Appellant argues that the resulting stigma of having served two days of the 15-day term could affect future educational and employment opportunities, interpersonal relationships, and any further interaction between appellant and law enforcement personnel and the criminal justice system.

Appellant has failed to demonstrate how serving two days in jail has any collateral legal consequences different from those flowing from his conviction for harassment when he was required to serve five days in jail as a condition of his community supervision. Thus, we have nothing to review.

Appellant realizes that because the trial court rescinded its incarceration order, a review of that order is no longer a viable issue. However, he argues the appeal should not be considered moot because there would be nothing to prevent the trial judge from reinstituting the same order in the future. Appellant requests us to examine conduct that allows a trial court to avoid appellate review by terminating its order, then reinstating the same order in the immediate future.

For such conduct to be reviewable, two components must be present: the duration of the challenged action must be too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and there must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. Ex parte Nelson, 815 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing Murphy v. Hunt, 445 U.S. 478, 482; 102 S.ct. 1181, 1183 (1982); Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 146, 149, 96 S. Ct. 347, 349 (1975)).

The record reflects that the trial court judge rescinded his questionable incarceration order after appellant spent two days in jail. The record does not reflect the trial judge's reasoning for withdrawing the order. We can only assume the trial judge believed it was not properly instituted.

Nevertheless, appellant has not produced any evidence, and we find none, that appellant faces a reasonable expectation of being subjected to similar conduct before his community supervision period terminates. Therefore, we have nothing to review.

Accordingly, we overrule all of appellant's issues and dismiss this appeal as moot.





Frank C. Price,

Justice



Panel consists of Justices Taft, Alcala, and Price. (1)



Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).





1. The Honorable Frank C. Price, former Justice, Court of Appeals, First District of Texas at Houston, participating by assignment.