## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00006

- CR No. 02

- 20

- 00007

- CR No. 02

- 20

- 00009

- CR

____ _______ ________________

On Appeal from the 89th Distr ict Court W ichita County, Texas Trial Court No s . DC89

- CR2019

- 0319, 61176

- C 1

- 3, 61147

- C Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### D EQUAVIOUS 

### E UGENE 

### S ANDERSON 

### , Appellant
V 

### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION In his no tice s of appeal , Appellant Dequavious Eugene Sanderson indicates that thes e ap peal s are from the denial of pretrial habeas relief. A review o f the clerk ’ s record s , however, reveals no application for writ of habeas corpus, no w rit of habeas corpus, and no order denying pretrial hab eas relie f. Inste ad, in each case, Appellant filed an amended motion to reduce bail, the trial court signed an ord er denying it, and Appellant filed a notice of appeal complain ing of that denial. We notified Appellant o f our concern that we lack jurisdiction over th e s e appeal s because a trial court ’ s order denying a pretrial motion to reduce bail is not appealable. See Ragston v. State , 424 S .W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); but cf. Ex parte Peyton , No. 02

- 16

- 00029

- CR, 2016 WL 2586698, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.

–– Fort Worth May 5, 2016) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining t hat court of appeals does ha ve jurisdiction over appeal from denial of pretrial habeas corpus app lication seeking bail reduction) , pet. dism’d , No. PD

- 0677

- 16, 2017 WL 1089960 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2017) (per curiam) (not designa ted for publication). We indicated that we could d is miss these appeals for w ant of jurisdiction absent a response from Appellant or the State sho w ing grounds for continuing the appeal. In Appellant ’ s response, he urges us to treat these appeals as we would treat appeal s f rom the denial of pretrial habeas relief. This we cannot do. We have jurisdiction to consider an appe al from the denial of pre trial habeas relief

. See, e.g. , Ex parte Gill , 413 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (noting tha t3 appellant s had filed applications for writs of habea s cor pus seeking reduction of pretrial bail , relief had been denied, and the court of appeals had affirmed th e denials ). However, in R agston , the T e xas Cou rt of Criminal Appeals held, “ There is no

cons titutional or statu tory authority granting the court s o f ap peals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail. ” 424 S.W.3d at 52. Thus, whether we can entertain an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a bail

reduction request depends on how the defendant presen ted that request to the trial court. If the request was in a pretrial app lication for writ of habe as corpus and the trial court denied relief, we have jurisdiction over an appeal fro m the denial of tha t relief

. S ee Gill , 413 S.W.3d at 426 ; Peyton , 2016 W L 25 86698, at *1 n.2
. If the request was in a motion for bond reduction and the trial court denied the motion, as here, we have no jurisdiction over that interl ocutory appeal. See Rags ton , 424 S.W.3d at 52 ; Lopez v. State , No. 04

- 18

- 00165

- CR, 2018 WL 21 21347 , at * 1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 9, 2018, no pet .) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ; cf. Blakely v. State , No. 02

- 18

- 00188

- CR, 2018 WL 3153545, at *1 (Tex. A p p.
— Fort W o rth J une 28, 2018, no pe t. ) (mem. op., not designated for publi cation) ( holding we lack jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from denial of personal bond)

. We therefore dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R . A p p. P. 43.2(f).4 Per Curiam D o Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered : Febru ary 20, 2020