Mark Suniga v. The State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, dismissed Mark Suniga’s criminal appeal as moot. The trial court had failed to orally pronounce sentence in Suniga’s presence, but during an appellate abatement it pronounced the jury-assessed sentence, granting the relief Suniga sought.

Holdings

1. An appeal becomes moot when subsequent events eliminate the live controversy and the appellate court's judgment can no longer have a practical legal effect. Because the trial court orally pronounced Suniga's sentence in his presence during the abatement, the controversy was no longer live.
2. The appeal must be dismissed as moot when the appellant has received the relief requested and no live controversy remains.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal remained justiciable after the trial court orally pronounced Suniga's sentence in his presence during the appellate abatement.
2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot because the relief sought by Suniga had been granted.

Disposition

dismissed