Ex Parte Daniel Lee Miller
This text of Ex Parte Daniel Lee Miller (Ex Parte Daniel Lee Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-16-00124-CR NO. 03-16-00137-CR
Ex parte Daniel Lee Miller
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, NOS. 15-00262-2A & 14-03937-2A, THE HONORABLE DAVID L. HODGES, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Daniel Lee Miller appeals the denial of his applications for writ of habeas
corpus seeking release from jail after the trial court ordered him transferred to a therapeutic mental
health facility for the purpose of competency restoration treatment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
arts. 11.05, 11.09 (provisions relating to habeas corpus applications by person confined on
misdemeanor charge); see also id. art. 46B.073(b)(1) (provision concerning commitment for
restoration to competency for defendant charged with misdemeanor). Since the filing of these
appeals, this Court has received two supplemental clerk’s records in each case.
The first supplemental record contains documentation that indicates that appellant
was transferred to the Austin State Hospital for competency restoration treatment, and that the court
ordered an extension of his commitment for further evaluation and treatment to obtain competency
upon the hospital’s request. Thus, the record reflects that appellant received the relief he sought in
his applications for writ of habeas corpus. The second supplemental record contains an order signed by the trial court, which
granted the State’s motion to dismiss the underlying pending criminal case.1 Because the charges
against him have been dismissed, appellant is no longer subject to pretrial confinement or
commitment for competency restoration.
For the above reasons, the appeals of the trial court’s ruling on appellant’s pretrial
applications for writ of habeas corpus have been rendered moot. Therefore, we dismiss these
appeals as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); see also Alexander v. State, No. 03-13-00337-CR,
2014 WL 3562719, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 18, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated
for publication).
__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field
Dismissed as Moot
Filed: June 29, 2016
Do Not Publish
1 The stated reason for seeking the dismissal in each case is “in the interest of justice” because “[d]efendant found incompetent to stand trial and unable to regain competency.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ex Parte Daniel Lee Miller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-daniel-lee-miller-texapp-2016.