Joshua Dewayne Ragston v. State, 402 S.W.3d 472

Ragston (17 at the time) was charged by indictment with capital murder, murder, and aggravated robbery arising from a July 17, 2009, liquor-store owner’s death.
He was held on no bond for capital murder and had bonds of $500,000 for murder and aggravated robbery; a bond reduction motion was also filed.
Trial court denied habeas relief and kept the capital-murder/murder bonds, but reduced aggravated-robbery bond to $250,000.
This is an interlocutory appeal from habeas denial (cause no. 14-12-01127-CR) and a separate appeal from bond-reduction ruling (cause no. 14-12-01128-CR).
Ragston argued that Texas’s capital-felony sentencing statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because he was under 18 at the time of the offense.
The State argued pretrial habeas is not cognizable for as-applied challenges to sentencing and that the bond-order appeal is not jurisdictionally authorized.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Ragston’s as-applied challenge cognizable via pretrial habeas?	Ragston argues the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him due to Miller.	Ragston contends the issue should be addressed in habeas; the State argues pretrial habeas is the proper vehicle.	Not cognizable on pretrial habeas; affirmed denial of habeas relief.
Does the court have jurisdiction to review the pretrial bond-reduction order on appeal?	Ragston asserts interlocutory appeal jurisdiction exists to challenge bond reduction.	State contends no statutory/constitutional basis for interlocutory appeal of bond-reduction orders.	No jurisdiction to decide; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (as-applied challenges not cognizable on pretrial habeas)
Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (pretrial habeas limits on challenges to statutes)
Ex parte Doster, 303 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (habeas access limited to certain threshold challenges)
State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (habeas applicability and direct-appeal considerations)
Ramos v. State, 89 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002) (interlocutory bond-reduction review existence is unsettled)
Sanchez v. State, 340 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (interlocutory bond-review jurisdiction discussed)
Keaton v. State, 294 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009) (no interlocutory appeal from bond-reduction order without authority)
McCarver v. State, 257 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (pretrial bond-reduction interlocutory-appeal jurisdiction rejected)
Vargas v. State, 109 S.W.3d 26 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003) (bond-reduction interlocutory-appeal jurisdiction questioned)
Primrose v. State, 725 S.W.2d 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (footnote cited regarding appellate rule authority)