### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00563- CR

Ke lvin Pedro Best er, A ppellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 696 95, TH E H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

NO. 03-13-00564- CR

Ke lvin Pedro Best er, A ppellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 702 88, TH E H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A ND U M O PI N I O N

Appellant Kelvin Pedro Be st er, appea ring pro se, purports to appea l from two post-indictment pretria l ruling s of the trial court denying his requ es t fo r b o n d reduc tions in a family -violence assault ca se and a n ag gravated robbe ry

case
.Howeve r, in eac h case the trial court has cer tified that appellant “ca

nnot appea l” the
denial of bond reduc tion. An appea l must be dismiss ed if a cer tification showing the defe ndant has
the right of appea l has not been made part of the rec ord. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a) (2), (d); Blanton
v. State , 369 S.W .3d 894, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

Moreove r, we l ac k jurisdiction over a direc t appea l from an interlocutory pretria l
order on a motion for bond reduc tion. See Ex p a r t e Shumake , 953 S.W .2d 842, 846–47 (Tex. 1 App.—Austin 1997, no pet.).

Acc ording ly , we dismiss these appe als for w ant of jurisdiction.

The courts of appea ls have split over whether appellate jurisdiction exis ts in reg ard to direc t 1 appea ls from pretria l bail ruling s. A number of appellate courts have co n cl u d ed that no const itutional or st atutory provision exis ts authorizing an interlocutory appea l from a trial co u rt ’s order on a motion for bond reduc tion. See Ex parte R ag s t o n , 4 0 2 S.W .3d 472, 478 (Tex. App.—Houston [ 1 4th Dist.] 2013, pet. grante d.); Sanchez v. State , 340 S.W .3d 848, 849 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Keaton v. State , 294 S.W .3d 870, 873 (Tex. A pp.—Be aumont 2009, no pet.); McCarve r v. State , 257 S.W .3d 512, 514–15 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.); Vargas v. State , 109 S.W .3d 26, 29 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, no pet.); Ben f o rd v. State , 994 S.W .2d 404, 409 (Tex. A pp.—Waco 1999, no pet.). Conversely , some other courts have held t h at a d efendant may take an interlocutory appea l from a pretria l motion for bond reduc tion. See Ramos v. Stat e , 8 9 S

. W .3d 122, 124–26 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.); Clark v. Barr , 827 S.W .2d 556, 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1992, orig . proce eding ). This Court has previou sly held that we lack jurisdiction over such an appea l. Ex parte Shumake , 953 S.W .2d 842, 846–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). “[A]bs ent a decision from the Court of Criminal Appea ls or this court sitti ng en banc that is on point and contra ry to the prior panel decision or an intervening and materia l chang e in the statutory law, we are bound by our prior panel decision.” Medina v. State , No. 14-12-00383- CR, 2013 WL 4017340, at *4 n.5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug

. 8, 2013, no pet. h.); see Riney v. State , 28 S.W .3d 561, 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (adhe renc e to pr ece dent pursuant to doctrine of stare decisis “promotes judicial eff iciency and consistency , it fosters relianc e on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actua l and perc eived integrity

of the judicial proc ess.”)

. 2__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice
Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field
Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: August 29, 2013
Do Not Publish

3