Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 12, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00767-CR 

PATRICK LENARD, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F12-62409-V 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, and Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore 

Opinion by Justice FitzGerald 

Patrick Lenard is charged by indictment with aggravated kidnapping. The trial court set 

his bond at $1,282,000, but later reduced it to $1,000,000. Appellant was released on a $250,000 

surety bond. On June 4, 2014, the trial court held the bond was insufficient and raised it to 

$1,000,000. Appellant appealed the trial court’s order raising the bond. We conclude we lack 

jurisdiction over the appeal. 

“Jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to hear and determine a case.”1

 The 

jurisdiction of an appellate court must be legally invoked, and, if not, the power of the court to 

 1 Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 
 –2– 

act is as absent as if it did not exist.2

 “The standard to determine whether an appellate court has 

jurisdiction to hear and determine a case ‘is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but 

whether the appeal is authorized by law.’”3 The right to appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily 

created right.4

 Appellate courts may consider appeals by criminal defendants only after 

conviction or the entry of an appealable order.5

 

In Ragston v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that courts of appeals do 

not have jurisdiction over interlocutory orders regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail.6

 

Because the order in this case appeared to be an interlocutory order, as opposed to a final order 

on a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, we directed the parties to address our 

jurisdiction over the appeal. In response, appellant asserted several bases by which the Court has 

jurisdiction. The State did not timely file a brief. 

Appellant first asserts that article 44.42 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is broad 

enough to provide appellate jurisdiction in this case. We disagree. First, article 44.42 is titled 

“[a]ppeal on forfeiture.” It provides a defendant the right to appeal from a “final judgment 

rendered upon a personal bond, bail bond, or bond taken for the prevention or suppression of 

offenses . . . .”7

 Although arising out of prior criminal proceedings, “bail bond proceedings are 

independent from and collateral to the criminal prosecutions.”8

 2 See id. at 523. 

3

 Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008)). 

4 See McKinney v. State, 207 S.W.3d 366, 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Griffin v. State, 145 S.W.3d 645, 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see 

also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006) (providing right of appeal for defendant); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2) (rules for appeal 

by defendant). 

5 See Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.––Dallas 1998, no pet.). 

6 Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 

7

 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.42 (West 2006). 

8

 8 C.J.S. Bail § 264 (2005). 
 –3– 

The order at issue here is neither a bond forfeiture nor a final judgment. Rather, it is an 

interlocutory order issued by the trial court raising appellant’s pretrial bond. Thus, we conclude 

article 44.42 does not give this Court jurisdiction over the appeal from the trial court’s order 

raising his bond. 

Appellant next asserts that although most appeals of bond issues are from orders on 

pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus, filing a writ application in this case would have 

been a useless act because the trial court had already held the bond insufficient. In support of his 

argument, appellant cites to language in Fletcher v. State,

9

 in which the court of criminal appeals 

quoted this Court’s statement that the “law does not require a useless thing to be done.” 

However, the court of criminal appeals went on to conclude this Court erred in taking judicial 

notice of its own mandate, thereby relieving the State of its burden to prove the finality of a 

conviction used for enhancement purposes, reversed our judgment, and remanded Fletcher’s case 

to the trial court for a new punishment hearing.10

Appellant cites no case for the proposition that he may circumvent the proper procedure 

for seeking a reduction of his pretrial bond or obtaining appellate review of the trial court’s 

ruling. Therefore, we conclude his “useless act” argument does not support our jurisdiction over 

the appeal. 

Finally, appellant contends the broad terms of article 44.02 favor appealability. Again, 

we disagree. Article 44.02 provides for the right of a defendant to appeal following conviction.11 

Appellant is not appealing a judgment of conviction; thus article 44.02 does not give this Court 

jurisdiction over the appeal. Moreover, in Ragston, the court of criminal appeals specifically 

 9

 214 S.W.3d 5, 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 

10 Id. at 9. 

11 TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. 
 –4– 

held that “[t]here is no constitutional or statutory authority granting the courts of appeals 

jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail.”12

Because the order from which appellant seeks to appeal is an interlocutory order raising 

his pretrial bond, we conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

140767F.U05 

 

 12 Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52. 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

PATRICK LENARD, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00767-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 7, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F12-62409-V. 

Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, 

Chief Justice Wright and Justice Fillmore 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered September 12, 2014