Ex Parte Joshua Deshun Lyda v. the State of Texas

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,
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

2