Ex Parte Joshua Deshun Lyda v. the State of Texas

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00888-CR

NO. 03-25-00889-CR

Ex parte Joshua Deshun Lyda

FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NOS. 23DCR88378 & 23DCR88375 THE HONORABLE STEVEN J. DUSKIE, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joshua Deshun Lyda was charged with the felony offenses of murder and evading arrest with a vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 19.02, 38.04(b)(2)(A). After his arrest, he filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking bond reductions. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1.09, 11.01, 17.151. The trial court denied the application, and he appealed that ruling to this Court. See Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425, 426, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (considering appeal of denial of habeas application seeking reduction in bail under article 17.151). After filing his appeal, he pleaded guilty to both charges after entering into plea agreements with the State. Consistent with the agreements, the trial court convicted him and sentenced him to fifty years’ imprisonment for the murder offense and to ten years’ imprisonment for the evading offense. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 12.32, .34.

“[T]he premise of a habeas corpus application” can be “destroyed by subsequent developments,” which “render[s] moot” “the legal issues raised thereunder.” Bennet v. State,

2

818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.) (internal quotations omitted). “Because Appellant has now been convicted, any issues concerning pretrial bond are moot.” See Ex parte Hodges, No. 02-02-00429-CR, 2003 WL 21359331, at *1 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth June 12, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal of denial of habeas application seeking bond reduction after defendant pleaded guilty under plea agreement); see also Rubio v. State, No. 03-24-00413-CR, 2024 WL 4244572, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 20, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining that because defendant “has been convicted of the underlying offense and is no longer subject to pretrial confinement, his appeal from the denial of his pretrial habeas application is moot”); Bennet, 818 S.W.2d at 200 (noting that “because appellant is now legally confined pursuant to a guilty verdict,” appeal “regarding lowering bail is now moot”).

Accordingly, we dismiss Lyda’s appeals as moot.

__________________________________________

Karin Crump, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump Dismissed as Moot Filed: January 2, 2026 Do Not Publish