Summary
holding that court lacked jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from orders denying motions for bond reduction
Summary of this case from Dresner v. StateOpinion
NO. 03-18-00029-CR NO. 03-18-00083-CR
04-25-2018
Ex parte Tutankhamun Holt
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. 76733 & 76732, THE HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Tutankhamun Holt stands charged by indictment with aggravated kidnapping (trial court number 76732, appellate number 03-18-00083-CR) and interference with child custody (trial court number 76733, appellate number 03-18-00029-CR). See Tex. Penal Code §§ 20.04(b), 25.10(b). In these two appeals, appellant seeks to appeal the denial of his pretrial motions for bond reduction. We dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
In criminal cases, this Court has jurisdiction to consider appeals from the entry of an appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02; see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). However, there must be a written, signed order from which to appeal. See State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (noting that Court of Criminal Appeals' precedent "requires that an order be in writing" when discussing State's statutory right to appeal pretrial suppression order); see also State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398, 401-02 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (holding that for purposes of appeal, trial court "enters" order when judge signs order). Here, neither record before us contains a written order signed by the trial court denying appellant's motion for bond reduction. Thus, there is no entry of any appealable order and, consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to consider these appeals.
Moreover, even had the trial court signed orders denying appellant's motions for bond reduction, we still lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals.
The standard for determining jurisdiction of an appellate court "is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ( quoting Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)); Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). This standard extends to interlocutory appeals as well: "'The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.'" Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52 (quoting Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). There is no constitutional or statutory authority granting courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail. Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the trial court's denial of appellant's pretrial motions for bond reduction, even had the trial court signed a written order memorializing the ruling. See Miller v. State, No. 03-17-00274-CR, 2017 WL 2729673, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 23, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Vasquez v. State, Nos. 03-13-00717-CR & 03-13-00718-CR, 2014 WL 3732962, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin July 25, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Because there is no signed written order from which to appeal, see Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d at 259, and because we do not have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a pretrial motion for bond reduction, see Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52, we lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
We observe that the trial court certification in these cases—on which the trial judge explicitly noted that "THERE IS NO ORDER WHICH MAY BE APPEALED"—are consistent with our conclusion that we lack jurisdiction over the trial court's denial of appellant's pretrial motions for bond reduction in these cases.
As an additional matter, we note that we are required to dismiss an appeal "if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record." See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). No such certification has been made part of the record in either of these cases.
/s/_________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: April 25, 2018 Do Not Publish