## NO. 12
- 23
- 00156
- CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DAKOTA CRITTENDEN , APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE § § § APPEAL FROM THE 392ND
DISTRICT COURT
HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURI

AM
Dakota Crittenden filed a pro se no tice of appeal to challenge the denial of his motion to reduce bond. On Ju ne 12, 2023 , the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the information received in this appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of this Cou rt, i.e., there was no n ot ice of app eal filed within the time allowed by the rules of appellate proce dure a nd no timely m oti on for

an extension of t ime to file the notice of appeal . The notice warned that the appeal would be dismissed unless Appellant a men ded the information on or before June 22 to show this Court ’ s jurisdiction. This deadline passed without a respo nse from Appellant or an amended notice of appeal. In a crimina l case, the appellant perfects an appeal by timely filing a sufficient notice of appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(b). The notice of appeal must be filed (1) within thirty days af ter th e day sente nce is imposed or su s pended in open cour t or afte r the day the trial court enters an appealable order, or (2) within ninety days after the day s entence is imposed or suspended in open court if the defendant timely fil es a motion for new tr ial

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2 (a) . The

a p pellate court may e xtend the t ime for fili ng a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the n otice, the party files in the trial court the notice of appeal and files in the appellat e court a mot ion complyi ng with Rule 1 0.5(b)

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2 6.3. Here , Appellant2

filed his n otice of appeal on June 12 , after expiration of the time for filing a ti mely notice of appeal o r seeking an extension of time to file the notice of appeal from the t rial court ’ s Mar c h 10 , 2022 order den ying his motion to reduce bond

.

“ [A] ppeals by either the State or the def endant in a criminal case a re permitted only when they are specif

ically authorized by statute .” State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine , 330 S.W.3 d 9 04, 915 (T ex. C rim. App . 2011). T his Court is not authorized t o extend t he time for perfecting an appeal except as pr ovided by the Texas Rules o f Appellate Procedure. 1 See T EX

. R. A P P

. P. 2 6.2, 26.3; see also Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Cr i m. A pp. 19 98) ; Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 199 6)

. B ecause Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was not ti mely filed and he did not file a motion for extension with t his Court within the time prescribe d by Ru le 26.3 , we dismiss Appel lant’ s appea l for want of jurisdicti on
. See Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522 ; see al so T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 43.2(f).
Opinion delivered June 30, 2023

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle , J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 Nor has t he Legislature vested appellate courts with jurisdiction to consider direct appea ls from in terlocutory pretrial bail rulings. Chestang v. State , No. 12

- 16

- 0030 5

- CR, 2017 WL 104637, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Jan. 11, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam) (noting that appeal was not f rom pretrial habeas application ) ; see also McCarver v. State , 257 S.W.3d 512, 515 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, no pet.)

. “ T here is no constitutional or statutory authority granting t he courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the den ial of bail.” Ragston v . State , 424 S.W

. 3d 49 , 52 ( Tex

. Crim

. App

. 2014 )

. Th us , we lack jurisdiction over Appellant ’ s appeal from the pretrial bail ruling

. See id

. ; see also Mouton v. State , No. 12

- 20

- 00034

- CR, 2020 WL 6380336, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Oc t. 30, 202 0, no pet.) (mem. op., not designate d for publication) (per curiam) ; Thomas v. State , No. 05

- 20

- 00722

- C R, 2020 WL 5757340, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Sept. 28, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ; Olageshi n v. State , No. 04

- 20

- 00057

- CR, 2 020 WL 1159065, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Mar. 11, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam) ; Chestang , 2017 WL 104637, a t *1 ; Bridle v. State , 16 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tex. App.

— Fort W orth 2000, no pet.)

.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 30 , 2023

NO. 12
- 23
- 00156
- CR

DAKOTA CRITTENDEN , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
Appeal f rom the 392nd Distric t Court of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR22

- 0031

- 392 ) T HIS CAU SE ca me on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same be ing cons id ered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is wi thout juri sdiction of the appeal, and th at the ap peal should b e dismissed.

It is th erefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by t his Cou rt th at th is appeal be, and the same is, hereby dis m issed for w ant of j ur isdiction ; a nd that this decision be certi fied to t he court b elow for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel c onsisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J