in Re Kristin Nichole Bowling
13-15-00331-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 17, 2015Background
- Kristin Nichole Bowling was arrested in Kleberg County for possession of methamphetamine and heroin; magistrate and district court entered bail orders imposing pretrial supervision conditions.
- The 105th District Court issued standing pretrial supervision orders requiring reporting, testing, residency limits, and other conditions; Bowling was later arrested after the State moved to revoke her surety bonds for failure to report.
- Bowling filed pleas to the jurisdiction in district court arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over non-indicted defendants and had no authority to impose pretrial bond conditions absent an indictment; the district court denied the pleas.
- Bowling appealed and sought writs of mandamus and prohibition from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals challenging the denial of her pleas to the jurisdiction.
- After filing, the State submitted clerk records showing the district attorney declined prosecution ("no lab results") and Bowling was released; the Court considered whether that dismissal rendered the proceedings moot.
- The Court concluded the charges were rejected and Bowling’s release eliminated the controversy, so the appeals and original proceedings were dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court lacks jurisdiction to impose pretrial bond conditions or act on bond revocation absent an indictment | Bowling: district court has no jurisdiction over non-indicted defendant and cannot enforce standing pretrial orders | State: district court retained authority to act on pretrial matters (including appointing counsel) and prior rulings rejected Bowling’s argument | Court: did not reach merits — dismissal for mootness because State rejected charges and Bowling was released |
| Whether mandamus/prohibition relief is available when underlying charges are dismissed | Bowling: requested extraordinary relief to vacate orders despite dismissal | State: dismissal means no pending case; mandamus is not available because no case remains | Court: relief moot; mandamus/prohibition dismissed as there is nothing to compel or prohibit |
Key Cases Cited
- Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. 1996) (same principles govern mandamus and prohibition to correct unlawful assumption of jurisdiction)
- In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (requirements for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Holmes v. Denson, 671 S.W.2d 896 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (mandamus denied where respondent lost jurisdiction after dismissal)
- In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (dismissing mandamus as moot where relief already obtained)
- State ex rel. Thomas v. Banner, 724 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (judge entering void order has ministerial duty to vacate)