Court Opinion

ID: 9391743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 06:10:37.853877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:44.197150
License: Public Domain

CONCUR and Opinion Filed April 27, 2023

                                    S   In the
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-22-01369-CR

                       EX PARTE SEAN LEYENDECKER

                On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court
                             Collin County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. 219-03832-2022

                           CONCURRING OPINION
                            Opinion by Justice Kennedy
      I concur in the majority’s decision to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion the trial court

lacked authority to consider and rule on appellant’s December 2, 2022 motion.

Instead, I conclude the trial court had jurisdiction to consider and rule on appellant’s

motion and that the trial court’s ruling thereon is interlocutory and not subject to

appeal.

                 TRIAL COURT JURISDICTION OVER BOND ISSUES

      Article 17.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that once a

defendant has posted bond, that bond is valid and binding for the duration of the case

before the trial court, any transferee court, and for all subsequent proceedings
relative to the charge. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.09, § 1. Thus, the

bond, and the requirement that the defendant appear for trial proceedings, follows

the defendant’s case regardless of the court to which the case may be assigned. See

id. A trial court may require the bond be adjusted if the court determines the bond

is defective, excessive, or insufficient, has unacceptable sureties, or for other good

and sufficient cause. Id. at art. 17.09, § 3; Ex parte Gomez, 624 S.W.3d 573, 575–

76 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).

      Thus, in this case, the trial court retained the authority to monitor the status of

appellant’s case and adjust his bond and conditions as necessary. See Gomez, 624

S.W.3d at 575–76. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to consider and

rule on appellant’s December 2 motion.

                         APPELLATE COURT JURISDICTION

      With respect to this court’s jurisdiction, we may exercise jurisdiction only

when authorized by statute. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014). Generally, a criminal defendant may appeal only from a final judgment. See

State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Ex parte Evans,

611 S.W.3d 86, 87 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, no pet.). We do not have jurisdiction

to review interlocutory orders absent an express grant of jurisdiction by law.

Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

      Nothing in Article 17.09, or in Chapter 17 generally, provides for the right to

file an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s rulings on motions seeking bail. See

                                          –2–
Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52 (“There is no constitutional or statutory authority

granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding

excessive bail or the denial of bail”). As a result, whether a defendant can obtain

appellate review of the trial court’s bail determinations depends on how the matter

is raised in the trial court.

       A defendant may appeal an adverse ruling on a pretrial application for writ of

habeas corpus requesting relief on a bond, but the defendant may not appeal an

adverse ruling on an interlocutory motion requesting relief on the bond. See id.; Ex

parte Carter, 621 S.W.3d 355, 357–58 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, no pet.); see

also Ex parte Hernandez, No. 04-20-00395-CR, 2020 WL 6749045, at *1 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio Nov. 18, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication); Sanderson v. State, No. 02-20-00006-CR, 2020 WL 827590, at *1

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 20, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication).

       Because appellant seeks relief from an adverse ruling on an interlocutory

motion seeking relief from the terms and conditions of his bond, this Court lacks

jurisdiction over his appeal.

                                        –3–
      Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s decision dismissing this case for want

of jurisdiction.

                                          /Nancy Kennedy/
                                          NANCY KENNEDY
                                          JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
221369CF.U05

                                       –4–