Ex Parte Eddie Alberto Miller v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 15, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00720-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued May 15, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00718-CR NO. 01-23-00719-CR NO. 01-23-00720-CR ——————————— EX PARTE EDDIE ALBERTO MILLER

On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 1832597, 1832598, 1832599

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Eddie Alberto Miller appeals from the trial court’s September 22,

2023 orders denying Miller’s applications for pretrial habeas corpus seeking

reduction of bond in his three trial court causes. We dismiss the appeals as moot. Appellant was indicted for the offenses of capital murder, attempted capital

murder of a peace officer, and aggravated assault of a peace officer. He filed

applications and amended applications for writ of habeas corpus to reduce his bonds

on $1 million for the capital murder charge, and $750,000 for each of the other two

charges. The trial court denied the applications and appellant filed notices of appeal.

Appellant’s brief was filed on November 8, 2024 and the State’s brief was filed on

December 2, 2024. The cases were set for submission on the briefs on April 28,

2025, but the Court learned that appellant may have been convicted in one or more

cases and issued an order on April 29, 2025 requesting supplemental clerk’s records.

On May 2, 2025, the Court received three supplemental clerk’s records indicating

that appellant was convicted of capital murder on April 17, 2025, and the other two

cases were dismissed by orders signed on April 21, 2025.

“[W]here the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by

subsequent developments, the legal issues raised thereunder are rendered moot.”

Bennet v. State, 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no

pet.) (quoting Saucedo v. State, 795 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

1990, no pet.)). Because appellant has been convicted of one of the underlying

offenses and the other two criminal actions have been dismissed, appellant is no

longer subject to pretrial confinement and his appeals from the denial of his

applications for writ of habeas corpus are moot.

2 We dismiss the appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). Any pending motions

are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.

Do not publish.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