Court Opinion

ID: 9406579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-01 10:11:49.010579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:31.500331
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00155-CR

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL LEONARD CUNNINGHAM,                      §       APPEAL FROM THE 392ND
APPELLANT
                                                 §       DISTRICT COURT
V.
                                                 §       HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM

       Michael Leonard Cunningham filed a pro se notice of appeal to challenge the denial of
his motion to reduce bond. On June 12, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the
information received in this appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., the order
being appealed is not appealable. The notice warned that the appeal would be dismissed unless
Appellant amended the information on or before June 22 to show this Court’s jurisdiction. This
deadline passed without a response from Appellant or an amended notice of appeal.
       The Legislature has not vested appellate courts with jurisdiction to consider direct
appeals from interlocutory pretrial bail rulings. Chestang v. State, No. 12-16-00305-CR, 2017
WL 104637, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 11, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (per curiam); see also McCarver v. State, 257 S.W.3d 512, 515 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2008, no pet.). As the court of criminal appeals has explained, “[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.” Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).        Accordingly,      we    lack
jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s pretrial bail ruling in this
case. See id.; see also Mouton v. State, No. 12-20-00034-CR, 2020 WL 6380336, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Tyler Oct. 30, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per
curiam); Thomas v. State, No. 05-20-00722-CR, 2020 WL 5757340, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Sept. 28, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Olageshin v. State, No. 04-
20-00057-CR, 2020 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, at *1; Bridle v.
State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). For this reason,
we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered June 30, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          2
                                 COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                            JUNE 30, 2023

                                        NO. 12-23-00155-CR

                           MICHAEL LEONARD CUNNINGHAM,
                                      Appellant
                                         V.
                                THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                      Appellee

                               Appeal from the 392nd District Court
                    of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR22-0573-173)

                   THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and
that the appeal should be dismissed.
                   It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.

                   By per curiam opinion.
                   Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J