Blanton v. State

Full title: CHRISTOPHER RAY BLANTON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

Date published: Feb 28, 2005

No. 12-05-00031-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 28, 2005)

Opinion

No. 12-05-00031-CR

Opinion delivered February 28, 2005.

Appeal from the 420th Judicial District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas.

Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J. and DeVASTO, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SAM GRIFFITH, Justice.

Appellant Christopher Blanton was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery, and his bail was set at $20,000. He contends in this appeal that his bail is excessive. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 5, 2004, Appellant was charged by four separate indictments with aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual assault, attempted aggravated sexual assault, and burglary of a habitation. His bail was initially set at $120,000. On January 3, 2005, Appellant filed a motion for reduction of bail in each of the four cases. After a hearing on January 6, the trial court denied Appellant's motion. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in each case, and those appeals are now pending in this Court. On January 28, Appellant filed a notice of appeal in this proceeding that stated as follows:

Please take notice of my appeal of the rulings of the Court, 420th Judicial District, Nacogdoches County, Texas, same occurring — on January 6, 2005, as they now pertain to Trial Court Cause No. F12,540-2005.

On February 7, 2005, we received the clerk's record in this appeal. The record reflected that Appellant was charged by indictment in trial court cause number F12,540-2005 (the "subject cause number") on January 14, 2005 and that bail was set at $20,000. However, the record did not contain a final judgment or other appealable order. On that same date, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant of the defect. See Tex.R.App.P. 37.2. Through a number of communications by telephone, letter, and personal visit, Appellant's counsel responded that the January 6 bail hearing pertained to the four cause numbers arising out of the November 5, 2004 indictments as well as the subject cause number. On February 15, we received a supplemental clerk's record in this appeal, which included four documents: (1) a notice of intent to introduce extraneous evidence, (2) the State's response to a standard discovery order, (3) Appellant's request for a supplemental clerk's record, and (4) the trial court's docket sheet. Neither the clerk's record nor the supplemental clerk's record included a motion to reduce bail in the subject cause number. On February 15, we also received a reporter's record from Appellant's arraignment in the subject cause number, which occurred on February 11. During that proceeding, Appellant's counsel asked the trial court how much bond it was setting, and the trial court responded that bond was set at $20,000. Counsel closed without requesting a reduction in the amount set, and the trial court's docket sheet does not include a notation that any reduction was requested.

DISCUSSION

Courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in criminal matters unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ex parte Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). One exception to this rule is the denial of a motion to reduce bail. See, e.g., Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no pet.); Clark v. Barr, 827 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.); see also Tex.R.App.P. 31.1. Appellant contends this exception is applicable here because the motion to reduce bail filed in connection with the first four indictments against him also includes the indictment in the instant case. However, the record does not support Appellant's position. The record reveals that the motion to reduce bail filed in connection with the four other indictments against Appellant identified each cause by its respective number. The record further shows that the hearing on Appellant's motion was conducted on January 6, which was eight days before Appellant was indicted in the subject cause number. Thus, the subject cause number did not exist on the date of the hearing. For this reason, Appellant's counsel vigorously objected when counsel for the State offered into evidence the complaint upon which the indictment in the subject cause number is predicated. Finally, the trial court's order denying the motion references the same four causes identified in Appellant's motion. Therefore, we cannot agree that Appellant's motion to reduce bail filed in the four other causes pertains to the subject cause number. Nothing in the record indicates that Appellant ever filed a motion to reduce bail in the subject cause number or that the trial court ever entered an order on such a motion. Because no such motion and order exist in relation to the subject cause number, we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.