Summary
holding court lacked jurisdiction to consider appeal from order granting State's motion to amend the amount and conditions of a defendant's pretrial bond
Summary of this case from Ex parte HerreraOpinion
No. 04-16-00046-CR
05-04-2016
Samuel C. PERKINS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. CM000409, CM000410, CM021770, CM021771, CM021772, CM021773, CM021774, CM022491, CM022492, CM022493, CM023681, CM026382
Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Magistrate Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Samuel C. Perkins filed a notice of appeal, stating that he intends to appeal the trial court's December 29, 2015 order that granted the State's motion and amended the amount and conditions of his pretrial bond in twelve pending criminal cases. We, however, do not have jurisdiction over this appeal.
Courts of appeal "do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law." Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A trial court's order on a motion to modify the amount or conditions of a pretrial bond is not authorized by statute and therefore is not appealable. See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ("There is no constitutional or statutory authority granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail."); Sanchez v. State, 340 S.W.3d 848, 852 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (holding court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over appeal of pretrial order on motion for reduction of bond); Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction because appeal of order regarding condition of pretrial bond was not appealable).
We therefore ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not file a response showing that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM Do not publish