Ex Parte Daniel Troy LeBlanc v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00102-CR
__________________

EX PARTE DANIEL TROY LEBLANC

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24DCCR0361
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Daniel Troy LeBlanc filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking

a bond reduction in Trial Cause Number 24DCCR0361. The trial court issued the

writ but denied relief. LeBlanc filed a notice of appeal.

The State filed a motion to dismiss LeBlanc’s appeal on the ground that the

trial court had granted the State’s motion to dismiss the indictment in Trial Cause

Number 24DCCR0361. The State argues the appeal was moot because LeBlanc had

been reindicted in Trial Cause Number 24DCCR0520 and LeBlanc filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus in Trial Cause Number 24DCCR0520.

1
On August 14, 2024, LeBlanc filed a notice of appeal from an order denying

relief on an application for a writ of habeas corpus for bond reduction in Trial Cause

Number 24DCCR0520.1 The Clerk of the Court docketed the appeal from the order

signed in Trial Cause Number 24DCCR0520 as Appeal Number 09-24-00283-CR.

The clerk’s record filed in Appeal Number 09-24-00283-CR includes a surety bond

that establishes that LeBlanc was released from custody on August 15, 2024.

“Where the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent

developments, the legal issues raised thereunder are rendered moot.” Hubbard v.

State, 841 S.W.2d 33, 33 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.).

LeBlanc’s complaints about the trial court’s order in Trial Cause Number

24DCCR0361 would not secure his release from confinement because LeBlanc has

posted bail in Trial Cause Number 24DCCR0520. “When a defendant has once

given bail for his appearance in answer to a criminal charge, he shall not be required

to give another bond in the course of the same criminal action except as herein

provided.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.09; see Garcia v. State, 292 S.W.3d

146, 151 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (Evidence of bond forfeiture was

sufficient where the State reindicted the defendant under a new case number and

dismissed the original cause in which the bond had been filed.).

1We take judicial notice of the appellate record in Appeal Number 09-24-

00283-CR.
2
Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 27, 2024
Opinion Delivered August 28, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

3