Court Opinion

ID: 9958010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-06 06:14:45.66903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:41.277683
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed April 4, 2024

                                      In The

          Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   ___________

                              No. 11-24-00051-CR
                                   ___________

                      ROBERTO A. PINDER, Appellant
                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 104th District Court
                             Taylor County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 24282-B

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
       Appellant, Roberto A. Pinder, has filed a pro se notice of appeal from a
purported order denying an application for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the
appeal.
       Appellant attempts to appeal a purported order denying his pro se application
for writ of habeas corpus, which he filed pursuant to Article 17.151 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.151, § 1(1)
(West 2022). Article 17.151, in relevant part, provides that a defendant who is
accused of a felony offense and detained in jail pending trial must be released on
either a personal bond or a reduced bond if the State is not ready for trial on the
action that is pending against the defendant within 90 days from the commencement
of his detention.1 Id.
        When this appeal was docketed, the district clerk’s office informed this court
that there is no record of a trial court order denying an application for writ of habeas
corpus in this cause. As a result, the clerk of this court wrote Appellant and informed
him that it did not appear that the trial court had entered an appealable order. We
requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue this appeal.
Appellant has responded and filed an amended notice of appeal, but he has not shown
grounds upon which this appeal may continue.
        An appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal filed by a criminal
defendant from a final judgment of conviction or as otherwise authorized by law.
Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 51–52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Abbott v. State,
271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). At the time that Appellant filed
his notice of appeal and amended notice of appeal, the trial court had not ruled on
any pending writ of habeas corpus application pursuant to Article 17.151. Therefore,
the trial court has not entered an appealable order in the underlying proceeding.
        Moreover, we do not have jurisdiction to address interlocutory appeals
regarding the denial of bail. Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52. In Ragston, as in this case,
the defendant attempted to appeal the denial of his motion for a bond reduction and
contended that he was entitled to be released on a personal recognizance bond

        1
         We note that, in his initial notice of appeal, Appellant attempted to appeal the “denial of habeas
corpus” in two cause numbers, one of which appeared to be a misdemeanor-terroristic-threat offense.
However, Appellant only complained of the district court’s purported denial of his habeas application and
relied upon the felony provisions of Article 17.151. Similarly, his amended notice of appeal and response
only addressed the felony cause number. Nevertheless, the county clerk has informed this court that an
application for writ of habeas corpus has neither been filed nor ruled upon in Appellant’s misdemeanor
case.
                                                    2
pursuant to Article 17.151. Id. at 50–51. The Court of Criminal Appeals expressly
addressed the issue of appellate jurisdiction, affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal
of the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and 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.” 2 Id. at 51–52.
        Accordingly, because we do not have jurisdiction to address Appellant’s
appeal, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                        W. STACY TROTTER
                                                        JUSTICE

April 4, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

        2
         We further note that Appellant states that he was indicted within thirty days of his confinement
and that the State has announced ready for trial.
                                                   3