### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 23 - 00665 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 0066 6 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 0066 7 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 0066 8 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 0066 9 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 70 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 71 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 72 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 73 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 74 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 75 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 76 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 77 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 78 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 79 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 80 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 81 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 82 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 83 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 84 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 85 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 86 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 87 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 88 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 89 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 90 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 91 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 92 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 93 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 94 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 95 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 96 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 97 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 98 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 006 9 9 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 00 700 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 00 701 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 00 7 02 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 00 703 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 00 704 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 00 705 - CR NO. 03 - 23 - 00 706 - CR2 Michael Kleinman , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO S . 23 - 03 73 3 - 5 , 23 - 03737 - 5 , 23 - 03739 - 5 , 23 - 03741 - 5 , 23 - 03742 - 5 , 23 - 03743 - 5 , 23 - 03744 - 5 , 23 - 03745 - 5 , 23 - 03746 - 5 , 23 - 03747 - 5 , 23 - 03748 - 5 , 23 - 03749 - 5 , 23 - 03750 - 5 , 23 - 03751 - 5 , 23 - 03752 - 5 , 23 - 03753 - 5 , 23 - 03754 - 5 , 23 - 03755 - 5 , 23 - 03756 - 5 , 23 - 03757 - 5 , 23 - 03758 - 5 , 23 - 0375 9 - 5 , 23 - 03760 - 5 , 23 - 03761 - 5 , 23 - 03762 - 5 , 23 - 03763 - 5 , 23 - 03764 - 5 , 23 - 03765 - 5 , 23 - 03766 - 5 , 23 - 03767 - 5 , 23 - 03768 - 5 , 23 - 03769 - 5 , 23 - 03770 - 5 , 23 - 03771 - 5 , 23 - 03772 - 5 , 23 - 03773 - 5 , 23 - 03774 - 5 , 23 - 03775 - 5 , 23 - 03776 - 5 , 23 - 03777 - 5 , 23 - 03778 - 5 , & 23 - 03779 - 5

THE HONOR ABL E WILL WARD , JUDGE PRESIDING

O P I N I O N

Mich ael Kleinman was charged with multiple counts of violating ordinances enacted by the City of Cedar Park ( “ City ” ) , Texas, and v iolating a provision of the Texas Health and Safety Code , and he entered no - c o ntest pleas to the Class C misdemeanors in the City ’ s municip al court

. T he municipal court ac cepted his pleas and ass essed fines and costs in each

case. Kleinman appealed to the county court at law ( “ trial court ” )

. After K leinman appealed, the State fi l e d a n application for writ o f procedendo asking that the tria l cour t dismiss the appeals

a nd r emand the cases b ack to the municipal court for enforcement of final judgment. The trial court granted the requested relief , and Kleinman appeals the t rial co ur t ’ s or der

. We will reverse t he trial cou rt ’ s order and remand for fu rther proceedings

. BACKGROUND Kleinman opened a store in Cedar Park c alled Plan et K. After K leinman opened the store, code compliance off icers for the City notified him over a perio d of seve ral months that3

he alleged ly committ ed seven types of Class C misdemeanor offenses proscribed by provisions

o f the City ’ s Code of Or d i nances and a pro vision of the Health and Safety Code and that he continued to violate some of thos e provisions ov er severa l months

. See City of Cedar Park Tex. Code of Ordina nce s § 1.01.009 (explai n ing that each day of noncompliance quali fies as separat e violation ) . Specifical ly, the notices informe d Kleinman that he committed the foll owing forty

two violations:

1. t h ir tee n viola tions for intentionally, knowi ngly, or recklessly us ing land, building, structures, or appurten ances within the City in violation of zo nin g regu lations pr ohibiting businesses in that area from selling products comm only used , intended to be used , or common ly kno wn to be used for the ingestion, inhalation, preparation, or injection of illegal drugs

. See id. §§ 11.01.032, .02.0 64 ; see also id. § 11. 09.0 01 (de fi ning “head shop ”) ; 2. thirteen violations for i ntentionally , knowingly, or recklessly ope ra t ing a business without a perm a nent certificate of occupancy having been issue d. See i d. § 3.02.006 ; 3. twelve violations for er ect ing and insta l l ing or p ermit ting the erection and instal lation of a prohibited two pole sign. See id. § 13.05.002(11) ; 4. o ne violation for intentionally, kn owingly, or recklessly fail ing to provide the min imum number and type of plumbing fixtures required for mercant ile occupan cy. See i d. § 3.0 1 .001 (c) ; Inter na tional Code Counci l, Inc., Int ernat ional Plumbing Code § 403.1 (2 0 2 1 ed.) ; 5. one v iolation for intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly failing to provide and maintain sanitary toile t accommodations at a retail estab l ishmen t open to the public. Tex. Heal th & Safety Cod e § 341.06 1 ; 6. one vio lation for inten tionally, know in gly, or reck les sly failing to provide employees, customers, patrons , and visitors with the required minimum public and employ ee toilet facilities in a structure inten ded for public utiliz ation. See Cit y of Cedar Park Tex. C ode of Ordinances § 3.01.0 01 (c ) ; Interna tional Code Counci l, Inc., Int ernational Plumbing Code § 403.3 (20 21 ed.) ; and 7. one violation for intent ionally, know ingly , or recklessly fail i n g to maintain the existing plumbin g fixtures in proper operating condit ion in accordance with t he ori g i nal desig n in a safe and sanit ar y condition

. See City of Ced ar Park Tex. Code of Ordinanc es § 3.01.001 ( c) ; Interna tional Code Counci l, Inc., Int ernatio n al Plumbing Code § 102.3 (20 21 ed. )

.4

A f ter Kleinman w as notified of the violations , the S t ate i ss ue d compla ints formally charging him with the violations li sted above

.

On Au gust 2, 2 023, Kleinman pleaded no cont est to the forty

- two violations of the

sev e n Class C misdemeanors in the C i ty ’ s munici pal court

. Under th e plea paperwork, Kleinman agree d “ to pay the penalty prescribed f or the offense[s] as charged. ” After accepting Kleinman ’ s pleas, the municipal court enter ed judgments on August 3, 2023, fin d ing h im guilty and ordering him to pay fines , fees, and costs

. I n total, t he muni c ipal court o r d ere d Kleinman to pay $38 ,757 in fines and costs for the forty

- two violations. 1 K leinm an decided to appeal the forty

- two convictions to the t rial court for a t rial de novo

. See Te x. Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.042

. As part of that process , Kleinman filed a li mited power of attorney authorizing Roland DeNoie “ to perform an y and all acts necessary to effectuating postin g and perfecting appeal bonds ” in the

cases . Kleinman also filed on August 10, 2023, appeal bonds for each conviction for double the

a mount o f t he total fine and costs assessed ag ai nst him in each case

. The appeal bond s w ere signed by DeN oie purportedly “ as attorney in fact for Michael Kleinman ” an d by a surety , but Kleinman did not sign the appeal bonds. After receiving the appeal bon ds, t h e mu nicipal court judge did not app rove t he bonds and did not sign them ; on the cont rary, the box next to “ Not approved ” was check ed , and the date written for t h e date of nonapproval was August 18, 2023. The phrase “ No t Signed In Person By Princi pa l ” appe a r s next to the date of nonapprov al.

A f ter Kleinman filed the appeal bonds as part of his appealing the convictions to the trial court, the State filed a n appl i cation for writ of procedendo , arguing that the trial court

1 T he re cord ref

le cts t hat there was an additional alleged violation f or er ect ing and install in g or permit ting the erection and instal latio n of a prohibited two pole sign an d tha t the tr ial court ordered Kleinman to pay $326 for t he associated fine and costs. However , th at addi tio n al convi ction in municipal docket numbe r 2022001878 was not appealed and is , therefore, not part of th is ca se.5

did not h ave jurisdiction o ver t he a ppeals because the appeal bonds wer e insuf ficient to p erfect the app eals and requesting that the trial court remand the appeals to the municipal court for enfo r cement of the final judgment s . The trial court held a hearing on the motion in which the St at e argued that the appeal bonds were i nsufficient and that without an effective appeal bond,

t h e trial court had no jurisdiction ove r the appeals from the municip a l court. In response, Kleinman argued that his attorn ey in fact had been given the au thorit y t o execute the appeal bond s and that the bonds were valid. Additionally, he contended that he would have made any necessary cor rections to the appeal bonds but t hat he did n ot learn of the alleged deficiencies until August 21, 202 3, which was af te r the te n - day deadline for filing an appeal b ond with the municipal court . Al ternatively, he argued that the t rial court had jurisdi ction to allow him to file

new appea l bon ds co rrecting the alleged defects if necessary , and he attached to his responses appeal bo n d s that had his signature on them ra ther th an DeN oie ’ s . After con sidering the parties ’ arguments, the trial court grante d the relief requested by the S t ate by d ismissing Kleinman ’ s appeals and remanding the case s to the municipal court for enforcement of f inal judgm ent , and the trial co urt signed an order granting the State ’ s appl ication for writ of procedendo.

Following its ruling, the trial court issue d find i ngs of fact and conclusions of law supporting its judgme nt, including th e following:

Fi nd ings o f Fa ct

. . . 5. Defendant’s counse l submitted surety appeal bonds in the amounts authorized by the Municipal Court in each cause on A ugust 10, 2023

. 6. Rola nd DeNoie signed as Principal each appeal bond, listing his capacity as Defendant’s att or ne y - in

- f act. 7. The Cedar Park Munic ipal Co urt judge did not approve the appeal bonds.6

8. Defendant did not personally sign the appeal bonds in these causes

. 9. The C edar Park Municipal Court is not a municipal court of record.

Conclusions of Law

. . . 5. Arti cle 17.08 of the Code of Crim inal Pr ocedure states the requisites of a bail bond and requires that “the bond be signed by name or mark by the principal and sur et ies, if any, each of whom shall write thereon his mailing address.” Tex. Code Crim. Pr o [ c] . ar t. 1 7.08(4)

.

. . . 7. An app eal fro m a municipal court of non

- record is perfected when the appeal bond has been filed with the judge who tried the case not la te r than the 10th day after t he date the judgment was entered. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. a rt

. 45.042 6(a)

. 8. If an appeal bond i s not t imely filed, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction over the case and shall remand the case to the municipal court fo r execution of the sentence. T ex. Code Crim. Pro [c] . art. 45.0426(b)

.

. . . 11. Th e Def

e n dan t’s sig nature or mark on the app eal bon d must have been made personally.

. . . 13. The judge of the Cedar Park Municipal Court did not approve the appeal bond s. 14. The appeal bonds are insuf ficient to give this Court jurisdiction over the appe al s f ro m t he Ceda r Park Municipal Court. 1 5. The time to amend the appeal bonds in the Cedar Park Municipal Court under article 45.0426(a) expired. 16. Because this Co ur t lacks jurisdiction, this Court is without power to amend the appeal bonds. 17. The S tat e’ s A pplicat ion for Writ of Procedend o is GR ANTED in accordance with this Court’s order entered on October 13, 2023. Kleinman appeals the t rial court ’ s orders.7 GO VE RNING LAW Klein man appeals the tria l co urt ’ s granting of the State ’ s application fo r writ o f pro ce de n do. A writ of procedend o is “ [a ] higher court ’ s order directing a lower court to determine and enter a judgment in a previously removed case.” In re Bor un da , 528 S.W.3d 149, 151 n.3 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2017, orig . proceeding) (quoting Bl ac k ’ s La w Dic tiona ry 1397 (10th ed. 2014) ) ; see Ca vazos v. Hancock , 686 S.W.2d 284, 285 n .1 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 1985, orig. proceed ing ) ( explaining that writ of procedendo is order by appellate court directing “ an inferior court to execute judgment ” ). App el late c ou rts review a ruling on a writ of procedendo under an abuse

- of

- discretion standard. See Shelley v. State , No. 14

- 21

- 00164

- CR, 2023 WL 1988445, at * 2 & n.2 (Tex. A pp . — Houston [14 th Dist.] Fe b. 14, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op ., not design at ed for publi ca tion ). Und er that standard, when presen ted with a pure question o f law or when th e facts are undisputed, appellate courts review a trial court ’ s ruling de novo. See Dav is v. State , 74 S.W.3d 90, 95 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, no pet.)

. The trial court deter m in ed t ha t it did not have juris dic tion ove r the appeal from the municipal court. Whether a court has jurisdiction is a question o f law that we review de

novo. See State v. Lee , 437 S.W.3d 910, 911 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2014, pet. ref ’ d) ; Bell v. State , 569 S. W.3d 2 41 , 2 44 (Tex. App.

— Housto n [1st Di st.] 2018) , vacated on other grounds , No. PD

1383

- 18, 2021 WL 2677442, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 2021) (op., not designated fo r publication)

. An appellate court has “ jurisdiction to re v iew an order of a coun ty cou rt d ism issing an appeal fro m an infe rior court

. ” Com unidad Corp. v . State , 445 S.W.3d 40 1, 404 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) ; s ee also Tex. Code C r i m. Proc. art. 44.02 (explaining that “ [ a] defendant in any criminal action has the ri gh t of a pp eal under the rules her einafter prescribed ); Carson v. State , 559 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 201 8) ( noting that “ [g] enerally speaking,8

a criminal defendant ha s a statutory right to appeal ”)

. R esolution of the jur isdiction a l question presen te d he re i nvo lves statutory con struction, which is a question of law that we also review de novo. See State v. Donaldson , 557 S.W.3d 33, 40 (T ex. App.

— Austin 2017, pet. r ef ’ d)

. DISCUSSION On appeal, Kleinman conten d s that the trial court erred by gr an ti ng t he S t ate ’ s application for writ of p rocedendo. S pecificall y, he argue s that the trial court erred by concluding that it lacked ju risdiction to allow him to amend the ap pea l bond s under article 44.1 5 and by dismissing the appeal and remanding the cas e to t he munic ipa l court . In response, th e S t ate argues that the trial court properly granted its application for writ of procedendo because Kleinman di d not comply with the sta tut ory requiremen ts for filing an appeal bond and, therefore, the trial cour t di d not have j uri sdiction over the appeals . Specifically, the State urges that Kleinman failed to personally sign th e appeal bonds as the principal and failed to obtain the

a ppr oval of the mu nicipal court. B ecause the bond s purportedly did not comply, th e S t ate conten ds that they were defective from their inception. Accordingly, the S t ate insists that article 44.15 does not apply and “ does not confer jurisdiction on a county co urt in a de novo appeal when a valid appeal bond never existed. ” Altern ati vel y, the S t ate a rgu es that even if articl e 4 4.15 applied, it au thorizes but does not require a court to give a n appellant the opportunity to amend the bonds. B ased on this cons tru ction, the S t ate contends that the trial court ’ s dismissal due to “ faulty appe al bon ds is no t a n abuse of discretion. ”

In deter mining whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the appeals, we must construe the statutory provisions pertaining to appe al bonds. “ The overarch ing rul e of statutory construction is that we construe a st at ute in acc ord ance wi th the plain mean ing of i ts text unless the text is ambiguous or the plain meaning leads to absurd results that the legislature could not9

possibly have in tended.” Ex parte Ve la , 460 S.W.3d 610, 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015)

. “In

asce rt ai ning the p lai n meani ng of a word, we re ad wor ds and phrases in context and construe them according to the rules of grammar and usage.” Lopez v. State , 253 S.W.3d 680, 685 (T ex. Crim. App. 2008) ; see Tex . Gov ’ t Code § 311.011 (addressing common and tec hn ic al usage o f

w ords in construing codes ). A ppellate courts also interpret statutes “together and harmonized, if possible,” to give effect to all of the statutory provisions

. See Ex parte Gill , 413 S.W .3d 425, 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)

. Appellate cour t s “presume th at ever y word has been used fo r a purpose and that each word, phrase, clause, and sentence should be given effect if reasonably possible.” O ’

Brien v. State , 544 S. W.3d 376, 384 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)

. Article 27.14 of the Code of Criminal Pr o c edure gen era lly re q ui res that in cases in wh ich a defendant pl eads guilty or nolo contendere in a misdem eanor case , “[t]he court shall notify the defendant either in person or by regular mail of the amount of any fine or costs assessed in the case . . . a n d, if reques ted by the defendant, the amount of an appeal bond that the court will approve.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 27.14(b)

. Chapter 45 of the Code governs proceeding s i n justice and munic ipal co urts and establish e s additional requirements for app e a ling judgme n ts from those courts

. See id. a rt. 45.002

. That chapter requires that an appeal bond be filed as part of any appeal and requires that the “ bond may not be less th an two times the

am ount of the fine and costs adjudged agai nst the defendant

. ” Id. art. 45. 042 5 (a) ; see also id.

art. 27.14 (b) (requiring appeal bond)

. “ If the a ppeal bond otherwise meets the requirements of this code, the court without requiring a co urt appearance by the defendant shall approve the appeal bond

. . . . ” Id. art. 4 5 .0425

.

“ When th e appeal bond has been file d with the justice o r judge who tried the c ase not later than the 10th day after the date the judgment was en ter ed, the appeal in s uch case shall10

be he ld to be perfected. ” Id. a rt. 45.0 4 26(a) . H owever, “ [i]f a n appeal bond i s n ot timely filed, the appell ate court does not have jurisdiction over the case and shall remand the case to the justice or municipal court for execution of the se ntence

. ” Id. a rt . 45.0 4 26(b) ; se e a lso Skidmore v. State , 37 S.W. 859, 860 ( T ex. Crim. App. 18 96 ) (explai ning that “ [a] l egal and sufficient bond [is] nec essary to confer jurisdiction on appeal ” ).

Although Chapter 45 sets out specific requirements th at must be complie d wi th for trials in justice and municipal courts, it also r e cognizes that it do es not set out all necess ary p rocedural rules

. T e x. Code C r im. Proc. art. 45.002 . Specifically, it requires that i f it “ does not provi de a rule of procedure go verning any aspect of a case, the justice or judge shall apply the other g e n eral provis ions of this code to the extent n ecessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter. ” Id. Chap ter 45 does not set out the requirements of a bond, but article 17.08 doe s. See id. art. 17.08

. In this case, it is not alleged that the appe al b on ds fai led to comp ly with the directives of a rticle 17.08 except for the require ment that a bond “ be signed by name or mark by the principal

. . . who shall write thereon his mail in g address. ” I d. Additionally , a general provision governing appeal bond s allows the bon ds to be

a mended as follows :

W hen an appeal is taken from any court of this State, by filing a bond within the time prescribed by law in such cases, and the court to whi ch appeal is taken determines that such bond is defective in form o r su bs tance, such appella te co urt may allow the ap pellant to amend such bond by filing a new bond, on such terms as the court may prescribe.

Id. art . 44.15

. Accordingly, an app ellate co urt , in this case the trial court, may allow an appellant to file a ne w bo nd with the appellate co urt to cure defects in form or substance in the previously filed bond

. I

d.11 In evaluating the interplay between article 44.15 , which allows for amendments t o

a ppeal bonds , and article 45.0 4 26 , which sets out when appeal from a j us tice o r municipal cou rt is perfected , our si ster court o f appeals has explai ned that “ the fact that ” article 44. 15 “ exists is evidence that [an appellate ] court ’ s jurisdiction does n ot ‘ evaporate ’ immediately upon finding a bond inadequate

. ” Comunid ad C or p. , 44 5 S.W.3d at 406

. Although recognizing tha t the statute pertains to appeals in criminal matters, our si ster court explained that its construction is consisten t with t he manner in which civil appe llate bonds are handled. See id. In other words ,

a co urt to which an appea l i s taken has jurisdic tion over the appeal when a timel y appeal bond i s filed and may allow for the filing of an amended appeal bond if the appeal bond is deter min ed to be deficient in some manner

. See id. ; see also Pollak v. M etro pl ex Con sumer C t r . , Inc

. , 722 S.W.2d 512, 51 4 (Tex

. App.

— Dallas 1986, no writ) ( “[o]ur jurisdiction is invoked by the timely filing of the original bond, though defective or insuffici ent ” ); Jones v. Banks , 331 S.W.2d 370, 371 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 196 0, no wri t) (“The rule is that def ects of substanc e

or form in a bond for costs on appeal are not jurisdictional ”)

.

Although our sister court recognized that the code pr ovision used the word

“ m ay , ” which typically creates a discretionary autho rity , see Tex. G ov ’ t Code § 311.016( 1) , it

co ncluded that a court to w hich an appeal is taken cannot dismiss for lack of jurisdiction a defendant ’ s appeal for a deficient appeal bond without first provid ing “ noti ce and an opportunity

to cure by filing a new or a mended bond pu rsuant to article 44. 1 5. ” See Co munidad Corp. , 445 S.W.3d at 406 , 407 ; see also Few v. State , 230 S.W.3d 184, 189

- 90 (Tex. Crim

. App. 2007) ( explaining that defect in perfecting inst rum ent, which may be amended, does not affect jurisdiction)

. However, ou r sister court also r e aso ned that a court to which an appeal is taken

m ay d ismiss the ap peal if the defendant makes no effort to cure the defect in the appe llate bond12

after being pro v ide d notice of the defect an d an opportunity to cure. See Comunidad Co rp . , 445 S.W.3d at 406 ; see also Lo pez v. State , 649 S.W. 2d 165, 166 (Te x . Ap p.

— El Paso 1983,

no pet.) ( ap pro ving procedure by which county court at l aw ad vised defendant of defect in app eal bond (lack of his signature) and affor ded him opportunity to corr ec t it before ultimatel y d ismissing appeal for fai ling to file compliant appeal bond that remedied deficiency )

. 2

We agree with the construction ad opted by our si ster court. In this cas e, Kleinman filed his appeal bonds within ten day s of the municipal c ourt ’ s judgments and th ere fore co mplied with the filing deadline needed to perfect an appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 45. 0 4 26(a)

. Those appeal bond s were defective because the y w ere not signed by Kleinman and were instead signed on Kleinman ’ s be ha lf by DeNoie a s an atto rne y in fact

. S ee Zidell v. State , 530 S. W. 2d 577, 578 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1975) ( discussin g case conceding that signature from surety ’ s “ attorney in fact ” was ins uff icient to create effective bail bond ) ; Tierney v. State , 31 Tex. 40 , 41

- 42 ( 186 8 ) ( determin i ng that bail bond was insufficient be cause it “ did not purport to be executed by the princi pal ” )

. B ut see Purc ell v. Metropolitan Cas. Inc. Co. of N. Y. , 2 60 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. App.

— For t Worth 1953, no writ) (concluding in c ivil con text that appeal bon d d id not ne ed princi pa l ’ s signature w hen “ it does bear the signatures of the sureties ” )

. However , that de ficiency was not identif ied by the municipal cou rt u ntil after the ten

- day

2 The S t ate argues that Lopez doe s not s u pport a conclusion that Kl einman should have be e n given an opportunity to amend his appeal b ond s bec ause , unlike the City ’ s municipal court, the municipal court in Lopez was a court of record . Although it is true t hat the statutory provision go ver ni ng ap peals f rom munici pal courts of record imposes dif fe rent requirements for perfecting an appeal ( i .e. f iling a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal), see Tex. Gov ’ t Code § 30.00014 (c) , (d) , we do not agree with the S t ate ’s suggestion that t his di stinc tion co mpels a conclusion that defendant s who fil e timely but deficient appeal bond s for appe al s from municipal court s that are not courts of record should not be permitted an opportunity to amend, particularly in light of the global language from a rt icle 44.15 a ffording an opportunity to amend an appell at e bond “ [w]hen an appeal is taken from any co urt o f this S t ate. ” Tex. Code Crim. Pr oc. art. 44.15 (emphasis added)

.13

deadline had run

. A few days l ater, Kleinma n prepared new appeal b onds con tai n ing his signature and included those n ew appeal bonds in his response to the S t ate ’ s application for writ of procedendo , which arg ued that the trial c ourt did not have jurisdiction over the cases because the appeal bonds we re not personally si g ned by K lei n man.

Because Kleinman ti mely filed h is appeal bonds and because the only alleged deficiency in complying with the article 17.08 directives perta ined t o th e requirement that the principal sign the bonds , see Tex. Code Cr im . Pr oc. art. 1 7.08 , the tr ial c our t had jurisdiction to provide him not ice and an opp ortunity to cure the defects by filing new appea l bonds in each case as Kl einman attempted to do , s e e Co mun idad Corp. , 445 S.W.3d at 408 ; see also Martin v. State , 346 S .W .2d 840 , 841 ( Tex. Crim. A pp. 1 961 ) ( “ It has long been the rule that a criminal appe al, dismissed for want of a sufficient bond, will be reinstated upon motion accompanied by a sufficie nt b ond ”) 3 ; Joiner v. State , 232 S.W. 333, 333 (T e x. Cri m. App. 1921) ( providing that motion to dismis s a ppeal for defective appeal bond will be overruled where , “ after b eing noti fied of the condi tion of said appeal bond, a new bond was made by appellant in ac cordance with our statute ” ); Nelson v. Stat e , 119 S.W. 846, 846

- 4 7 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 1 909) (reversi ng appellate court ’ s jud gment granting S tate ’ s motion to dismiss appeal from justice court on ground that bond was insufficient where “ appellant tendered a su fficie nt bond ” in resp onse to State ’ s motion )

.

3 The S t ate contends tha t Martin v. State , 346 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961) , d oes n ot su pport the relief Kleinman requests . In th at case, the appellate court dismissed the d efen d ant ’ s appeal after concluding that the appe al bond was defective for not including which county court at law was b eing given notice of appeal

. Id. at 841 . The Cour t of Crimina l Ap peals de termined that the di smissal was imp r oper because the bond actu ally inclu ded the requisite information

. Id. Although the circumstances present here dif fer from those in Martin because Kleinman ’ s re quired s ignat ure was not included, we nevertheless find it instructive that th e Court of Criminal Appeals relied on the legal prin cip le that an appea l dismissed for a deficient bond must be reinstated when a sufficient bond is later filed. Se e id.14 Turning to the S t ate ’ s argument that the trial co urt did not have jurisdiction because the m unicipal court di d not sign and app rove the a ppeal bonds, we note that the pr ovision establi shing how an appea l is perfected does not require that the appeal bond be approved to pe rfect an appeal; on the contrary, th e provision simply requires that the appeal bond be filed with the municipa l court wi thin ten days of the judgment being entered. T ex. Code Crim. Pro c. ar t. 45.0426

. Although an other provision addresses the need for ap pro val by the court from which an ap peal is being made, th at provision places t he duty to approve the appeal bo nd on the court rather than placing the duty on the defen dant to have the a ppeal bond approved by the court. See id. art. 45.0425 . In oth er w or ds, the cour t is required to “ app rov e the appeal bond ” if the appeal bond complies with the statutory requireme nts

. See id. Moreover, the record in this case establis he s that the only reaso n the municipal court failed to approve the bonds

was the lack of Kl einman ’ s signature on the bond s . See id. Additionally , as found by the trial court, Kleinman complied with other requirements for filing sufficient appeal bonds , i ncluding requestin g the amount of the appeal bond s th at the municipal court would a ppr ov e and making the appeal bonds for t h ose amounts. See id. arts. 27.14(b), 45.0425(a)

.

Accordingly, we cannot ag ree wi th the State ’ s suggestion that the absen c e of appro val of the bonds b y the municipal court under the circum stances present here should be

c onsidere d a bar to appellate revi ew . C onstruing the pro vis ions at issue in the manner suggested by the S t ate woul d prohibit appellate review of municipal court decisio ns even if the def endan ts fully complied with the require ments for perfecting an appe a l if the municipal court disapprov e s t he appeal bonds af

ter t he ten

- day deadline for perfecting an appeal

. See id. art. 45.0426 ; see also Ex parte Vela , 460 S.W.3d at 61 2 (noting that sta tutes should not be read in manner t hat would lead t o absurd resu lts ). O u r cons truction is also consis ten t with a prior opin ion by the15

Court of Criminal Appeals allowing a defendant a n opportunity to file a new appeal bond that contained the trial court ’ s sign ature when the defendant filed a timely appeal bond that did n o t bear the trial court ’ s signature. S ee Mosley v. State , 141 S.W.2d 331, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 940) (on reh ’ g) . Al though that case occurred prior to the e nactment of ar ticle 44.15 , the c ase d oes support the conclusion that the absence of the municipal co ur t ’ s signature and approval in thi s c ase should not be treated as a bar t o appel late review

.

The State ’ s brief and the trial court ’ s order extensiv ely rel y on an opi nion by a sister cou rt o f appeals

. See Shell e y , 2023 WL 1988445

. As an initial matte r, we note that th e analysis from tha t u npublished case is not b inding p recedent for this Court

. S ee T ex. R. App. P. 47.7 (noting that criminal appellate opinions not designated for publica tion have no precedential value) ; see also HWY 3 MHP, LLC v. Elect ri c Reliability Council of Tex. (ERCO T) , 462 S.W.3d 204, 211 n.4 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2015, no pet.) (exp laining that analysis from sister court of appeals is not binding) . I n any event, we be lieve that the case is distinguishable from the circumstances pres en t here.

In Shell e y , the defendan t d id not r equest the amount of a bond that the justi ce

cour t would approve as required by stat ute and instead filed a bond for th e minimum a mount requir ed by statute , and the justi ce of the peace did not approve the bo nd , “ as evidenced by a lack of signat ure b y the justice of the peace. ” 2023 WL 1988445, a t *3

. O u r si ster court reasoned the bond was inadequate to perfe ct the appea l because “ a ppellant fa iled to request the amount of the bond that would be approved by t he justice of the peace and failed to ob tain app roval for the bond submitted to that court

. ” Id. However, as set out above, Kl ei n man did request and obtain the amount of the appeal bonds t h at wo uld be accepted by the municipal court , and the municipal

c ou rt withheld its approval only for th e te chnica l reason that Kleinman did not personally sign16

the appeal bonds as principal

. T o the extent that the analysis from Shell e y is in consistent with

ours , we disagree with the reasoning of our sister court.

Alt ho ugh Kleinman ’ s appeal bonds were def icie nt, the y w ere timely and substantially complied w ith the requirements for an appeal bond , s ee Holland v. State , 88 S.W. 361, 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 1905 ) (ex amining appea l bond and concluding that trial cou rt erred i n dismissin g appeal from justice court bec ause ap peal bond sufficiently complied) , and the trial court had jurisdiction to , and before dismissing his appeals for lack of jurisdiction was requ ired to , give Kleinman an opportunit y to cure the defects by fili ng another bond in each case. Because it did not do so, we agree with Kleinman that the trial court abused i ts discretion by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction o ver the appeals and g ranti ng th e State ’ s a pplication for writ of procede ndo on th at basis. T herefore, we sustain his issue on a ppea l

. CONCLUSION Having sustained Klei n man ’ s issue on appeal, we reverse the trial cour t ’ s order granting the State ’ s application f or writ of proceden do and remand for further pr oceedings consistent with this opin io n.

__________________________________ ________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice Befor e Ju st ices Baker, Triana, a nd Kelly Reversed and Remanded File d: July 10, 2024 Publish