In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-15-00519-CR
NO. 09-15-00520-CR
_________________
CHASE A. BRANT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 221st District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 15-03-03211-CR (Counts 1 and 2)
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chase A. Brant filed an appeal from the trial court’s oral denial of his
request for bond during the pendency of his appeals. In response, the State argued
that Brant’s appeals should be dismissed because the trial court had not signed
written orders reflecting its verbal denial of Brant’s request. On September 6,
2016, we abated the appeals and remanded the cases to the trial court for entry of
signed orders on Brant’s motion for release on bail pending the appeals. On
1
September 13, 2016, the trial court signed an order granting Brant’s request and
ordering that he “may be released if he makes an appeal bond in the amount of
$300,000.”
Our review of the records and briefing in these appeals leads us to conclude
that we must address whether these cases have become moot. “The mootness
doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy exists.” Ex
parte Flores, 130 S.W.3d 100, 104–05 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, pet. ref’d).
Thus, an appeal becomes moot when there ceases to be a controversy between the
parties. Id. at 105.Here, Brant’s complaint on appeal pertains only to the trial
court’s oral denial of his request for bail pending appeal. Brant asked this Court to
remand his cases to the trial court so that it could set a reasonable bond in each
case. Because the trial court has since granted Brant’s request for bond, Brant’s
sole issue on appeal is moot.
On October 20, 2016, we sent a letter to the parties questioning our
jurisdiction and warned the parties that the appeals are subject to dismissal for
mootness unless any party desiring to continue the appeals filed a written response
by November 4, 2016. The parties did not file a response. Accordingly, we dismiss
Brant’s appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
2
APPEALS DISMISSED.
______________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on August 17, 2016
Opinion Delivered November 16, 2016
Do not publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3
Chase A. Brant v. State
Combined Opinion