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

NO. 03
- 20
- 00409
- CR

Bo Mich ael Dresner , Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. CR
- 19
- 0800
- B, THE HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A ppellant Bo Michael Dresner stands charged by indictment with multiple child sexual abuse offense s and numerous co unts of possession with intent to promote child pornography

. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 21.02(a) (continuous sexual abuse of young c hild or child ren), 21.11(a)(1) (indecency with child by sexual contact), 22.021(a)(1)(B) (aggravated sexual assault of child), 43.26(a), (f) (possession with intent to promote child pornography)

. He seeks to appeal the trial court ’ s order denying his pretrial request f or bond reduction

. In criminal cases, t he 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. 20 1 1).2

This stand ard 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 7 92, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) ) ; see Tex. Const. art. V, § 6(a) (providing that courts of appeals have appellate jurisdiction “under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law”)

. “ T here is no constitutional or statutory authority granti ng the courts of appeals jurisd iction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail. ” Ragston , 4 24 S.W.3d at 52

.

Here, although the order that appellant seeks to appeal is , s o mewhat confusingly, entitled F inal Order on App lication for Writ o f Habeas Corpus or Order on Motion to Reduce Bond and Order on Conditions of Bond , the record demonstrates that the trial court ’ s order denied appellant’s mo tion to reduce bond not an application for wri t of habeas corpus

. 1 Compare i d. at 5 2 (holding courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeals of denial of pretrial motion for bond reduction) with e.g. , Ex parte Gill , 413 S.W.3d 425,
42 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ( considering appeal from denial of application for writ of habeas

c orpus under Article 17.151 ).

1 T he record reflects that eight months before ap pellant filed his moti on to reduce bond, the trial c ourt denied a pretr ial application for writ of habe as corpus in which appellant sought release pursuant to article 17.151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

. See T e x . Code Crim. Pro c . a rt. 17.151 ( requiri ng release of defendan t detained in jail pending tri al on personal bond or by bail reduction if State i s not ready for trial within specified ti me period )

. The appeal of the trial court ’ s order denyin g habeas relief , which was before this Court in cause n umber 03

- 19

- 0083 5

- CR , was abated for a hearing p ursuant to Rule 38.8 of the Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure

. See T ex. R. App. P. 38.8 (b)(3)

. After the hearing, the trial court made fact f inding s that reflected that the trial court ’ s June 15, 2020 ruli ng denying appellant’s reques t for a bond reduction

— the ruling that the order at issue here memorializes

— was a ruling on appellant ’s subsequently filed motion to reduce bond

. In addition, c i ting Ragston v . State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) , the trial court conclu ded that any appeal of such ruling should be dismissed because appellant had no right to an interlocutory app eal of that decision

.3 Therefo re, b ecause the orde r that is the subject of this appeal is an interlocutory order denying appellant ’ s pretrial motion for a bond reduction , it is not an appealable order, and we lack jurisdiction over thi s appeal

. S e e Ragston , 424 S.W.3d at 52 ; see also Ex parte Holt , No. 03

- 18

- 00029

- CR, 2018 WL 1937315, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Ap r . 25, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publicat ion) ( holding that court lacked jurisdiction over interlocu tory appeal from orde rs denying motions for bond reduction)

. Accordin gly, we dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f) ; s ee , e.g. , Fairchild v. State , No. 03

- 20

- 00354

- CR, 2020 WL 5608480, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Sept . 18, 2020, no pet.) (me m. op., not designated for public ation) ( di s missing appe al of trial court ’ s order de nying pretrial motion for want of jurisdiction )

.

__________________________________________ Edward Smith , Justice Before C hief Justice Byr ne, Justice s Baker and Smith Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: January 8, 2021 Do Not Publish