Ex Parte Christopher Riggins v. the State of Texas

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00634-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER RIGGINS

ON APPEAL FROM THE 130TH DISTRICT COURT OF MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

This matter is before the Court on the State’s motion to dismiss appellant

Christopher Riggins’s appeal from the denial of his pretrial application for writ of habeas

corpus. The State argues that probable cause was the only issue contested by Riggins,

and that the return of an indictment has mooted his appeal.

Riggins was arrested for aggravated robbery and placed in custody on November

8, 2024. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02, .03. On November 15, 2024, Riggins filed

his application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus. On January 27, 2025, a grand jury returned an indictment against Riggins for aggravated robbery, alleging that on October

16, 2024, he recklessly caused bodily injury to the complainant while committing theft and

exhibiting a firearm. On February 18, 2025, appellant filed a motion to supplement the

record, and we abated this appeal and remanded the matter for the trial court to resolve

any outstanding issues with the state of the record. Subsequently, the State filed the

motion to dismiss now before us.

Before he is indicted, an accused may file an application for writ of habeas corpus

to challenge the existence of probable cause to restrain him. Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d

797, 801 & n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (per curiam). However, the return of an indictment

establishes probable cause as a matter of law and renders moot any issues regarding

probable cause. Ex parte Branch, 553 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Ex parte

Cardenas, 557 S.W.3d 722, 736 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2018, no. pet.).

On the other hand, “[t]he return of an indictment does not render moot an appeal from a

habeas corpus proceeding to set or reduce the amount of bail.” Branch, 553 S.W.2d at

381 (citation omitted); see also McGill v. State, No. 13-99-713-CR, 2000 WL 34415609,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 19, 2000, no pet.) (not designated for

publication) (same).

We agree with the State that the indictment in this case has rendered moot

Riggins’s appeal. Although Riggins explicitly argued in his pretrial writ application that

“[t]he bond set is too high to allow him any expectation of release,” he did not seek a bond

reduction in his prayer for relief. 1 More importantly, at the hearing on Riggins’s

1Substantively, the application claims police and prosecutorial misconduct. In response to the State’s motion to dismiss this appeal, Riggins reiterates these allegations, arguing that “the indictment

2 application, defense counsel explicitly stated that Riggins was not requesting a reduction

in bond:

[Trial Court]: I believe, [counsel], you have a motion to reduce or set bond?

[Defense Counsel]: Yes, your Honor. Well, actually, I have a motion to – for Writ of Habeas Corpus to have him released entirely, not to have his bond reduced but that he be released from the custody of Matagorda jail.

...

[Trial Court]: Okay. So the paragraphs that you allege that the bond’s too high, those are a moot point and you’re not moving forward on a reduction?

...

[Defense Counsel]: No, your Honor, I’m not striking that. I am using that as basis for excessive bail and for his retention in jail and him being confined of his liberty. So that’s one of the bases.

[Trial Court]: But you’re not asking for it to be reduced, you’re just asking for him to be released?

[Defense Counsel]: Yes, your Honor.

[Trial Court]: So the reduction is not on the table?

[Defense Counsel]: No.

should not be deemed as a basis for deeming this appeal moot because of the misconduct of the prosecutor in obtaining the indictment.” Riggins does not provide us any authority that would support our ability to conduct the sort of inquiry into the validity of the indictment he requests. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Harvel v. Tex. Dep’t of Ins.-Div. of Workers’ Comp., 511 S.W.3d 248, 253 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2015, pet. denied) (“An issue on appeal unsupported by argument or citation to any legal authority presents nothing for the court to review.”); Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (“Failure to cite legal authority or provide substantive analysis of the legal issue presented results in waiver of the complaint.”).

3 Because defense counsel explicitly took bond reduction off the table, the record is

clear that the only contested issue considered and ruled upon by the trial court was

whether there was probable cause to keep Riggins detained pre-indictment. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 33.1(a)(1) (providing that appellate courts cannot review points of error unless

“the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion”).

Because Riggins has been indicted, and the existence of probable cause was the

only issue presented to the trial court, this appeal is moot. See Branch, 553 S.W.2d at

381; Cardenas, 557 S.W.3d at 736; see also Ex parte Ransom, No. 05-22-00241-CR,

2022 WL 3054086, at *1 (Tex. App. Aug. 3, 2022) (mem. op., not designated for

publication) (“Because appellant has been indicted, and the existence of probable cause

is the only issue on appeal, this appeal is moot.”).

Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and grant the State’s motion to dismiss and

dismiss this appeal as moot. We dismiss all pending motions as moot, including

appellant’s motion to supplement the clerk’s record, filed on February 12, 2025.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the 18th day of June, 2025.