Court Opinion

ID: 9400033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 08:09:20.316442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:41.759854
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00102-CR

      TORRANCE MEYON ROBINSON, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 6th District Court
                Lamar County, Texas
                Trial Court No. 29951

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       On August 11, 2022, Torrance Meyon Robinson was indicted for assault of a member of

his household by impeding circulation.        On February 6, 2023, Robinson’s court-appointed

attorney filed a motion to reduce Robinson’s $110,000.00 bond. On February 24, 2023, the trial

court entered an order denying the bond reduction motion. On May 11, 2023, Robinson filed a

pro se notice appealing the trial court’s order.

       In Texas, “[j]urisdiction must be expressly given to the courts of appeals in a statute.”

Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “[T]he standard for determining

jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized

by law.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008)). “This extends to interlocutory appeals as well . . . .” Id. “The courts of

appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been

expressly granted by law.” Id. (quoting Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991)). The Texas Legislature has not given appellate courts jurisdiction to hear direct

appeals from interlocutory pretrial bail rulings, such as the trial court’s February 24 order in this

case. See id.; McCarver v. State, 257 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.).

Consequently, we find no appealable order in the record before this Court.

       Further, even if the trial court’s February 24 order were appealable, Robinson’s notice of

appeal would not have been timely.

       By letter dated May 16, 2023, we notified Robinson’s court-appointed attorney of this

jurisdictional issue and afforded him an opportunity to respond. Although counsel for Robinson

                                                   2
did not file a response, Robinson did. Robinson’s response failed to demonstrate how we have

jurisdiction over this appeal.

       Because there is no appealable order in the appellate record, we lack jurisdiction over this

appeal. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                             Scott E. Stevens
                                             Chief Justice

Date Submitted:        June 1, 2023
Date Decided:          June 2, 2023

Do Not Publish

                                                3