EX PARTE RICHARD JOHN FLORANCE, JR

Annotate this Case

DISMISS; Opinion issued October 20, 2008
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-08-00994-CR
............................
EX PARTE RICHARD JOHN FLORANCE, JR.
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 002-81238-06
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Whittington, and O'Neill
Opinion By Justice Whittington
        Richard John Florance, Jr. filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking discharge of his prosecution for refusing to release a fraudulent lien or claim. Following a hearing, the trial judge denied appellant the relief he sought. In three issues, appellant challenges the trial court proceedings and the order denying him relief. The State responds the appeal is moot because appellant has since been convicted of the charged offense.
        The order denying habeas corpus relief was signed on July 7, 2008. On July 17, 2008, following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the charged offense and punishment was assessed at 180 days' confinement in jail and a $2000 fine.   See Footnote 1  Thus, the appeal from the trial court's order denying habeas corpus relief is moot. See Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Taylor v. State, 676 S.W.2d 135, 136 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) ( per curiam).
        We dismiss the appeal.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MARK WHITTINGTON
                                                          JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
080994F.U05
 
Footnote 1 The appeal from that conviction is pending in this Court at cause no. 05-08-00984-CR, styled Richard John Florance, Jr. v. The State of Texas.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.