Opinion issued October 12, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-01014-CR
———————————
EX PARTE CAMERON MICHAEL MOON
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1467534A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In December 2008, a juvenile court waived jurisdiction over 16-year-old
Cameron Michael Moon (“Moon”) and certified him to stand trial as an adult in
criminal district court for the charged offense of murder. After a jury convicted him
and assessed his punishment at 30 years’ imprisonment, Moon appealed. This Court
held that the juvenile court abused its discretion in waiving jurisdiction over Moon,
vacated the criminal district court’s judgment, and dismissed the case. See Moon v.
State, 410 S.W.3d 366, 378 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013), aff’d, 451
S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). On the State’s petition for discretionary review,
the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this Court’s judgment. See Moon v. State,
451 S.W.3d 28, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
On remand, the juvenile court again waived jurisdiction over Moon, who was
then over the age of 18, and recertified him to stand trial as an adult in criminal
district court for the same charged offense of murder. Moon filed a motion to
dismiss and an application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus with the criminal
district court, both of which the district court denied.
Moon appealed the district court’s denial of his application for a pretrial writ
of habeas corpus. In our original opinion, this Court affirmed the trial court’s denial
of the pretrial writ of habeas corpus. On rehearing, we reversed the criminal district
court’s order denying Moon’s application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus, and
we remanded the matter to the criminal district court with instructions to enter an
order granting Moon’s pretrial writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the case for lack
of jurisdiction. Ex parte Moon, 649 S.W.3d 700, 720−21 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2022).
The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the State’s petition for discretionary
review to consider three issues related to the juvenile court’s second transfer order,
2
including whether this Court erred in holding that Moon’s challenge was cognizable
in pretrial habeas, and it raised a fourth ground on its own motion. See Ex parte
Moon, 667 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023). The Court ultimately
concluded that Moon’s “appeal from the pretrial habeas corpus application in this
case constitutes a ‘criminal law matter’” and that this Court lacked authority to
entertain his appeal. The Court held that
given former [Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] Article 44.47(b)’s
history and plain import, any purported appeal of the district court’s
pretrial habeas corpus order relating to the juvenile court’s transfer
order in this case was without authority. The court of appeals should
not have entertained [Moon’s] appeal but should have simply dismissed
it as premature—under former Article 44.47(b).
Id. at 801 (holding that former Article 44.47 “limits a defendant’s appeal, of any
kind, that challenges the validity of a juvenile court’s transfer order solely to the
context of criminal post-conviction (or post-deferred adjudication) appellate
review”). The Court thus reversed our judgment and remanded the case for this
Court “to issue an order dismissing the appeal as unauthorized under former Article
44.47.” Id. at 85.1
Pursuant to the Court’s directive, we dismiss this appeal “as unauthorized
under former [Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] Article 44.47.” See TEX. CODE
1
Moon filed a motion for rehearing of the Court’s opinion which the Court denied on
September 13, 2023. Justice Newell filed a dissenting opinion to the denial of
rehearing, in which Justices Richardson and Walker joined.
3
CRIM. PROC. art. 44.47(b) (repealed by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., ch. 74 (S.B. 888), § 4,
p. 1066, eff. Sept. 1, 2015).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Hightower, and Rivas-Molloy.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4