Court Opinion

ID: 9406592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-01 10:12:00.941104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:31.535914
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00156-CR

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                       TYLER, TEXAS

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

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                        PER CURIAM

          Dakota Crittenden 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., there was no notice of
appeal filed within the time allowed by the rules of appellate procedure and no timely motion for
an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. 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.
          In a criminal case, the appellant perfects an appeal by timely filing a sufficient notice of
appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(b). The notice of appeal must be filed (1) within thirty days after
the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or after the day the trial court enters an
appealable order, or (2) within ninety days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in
open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). The
appellate court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after the
deadline for filing the notice, the party files in the trial court the notice of appeal and files in the
appellate court a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b). TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Here, Appellant
filed his notice of appeal on June 12, after expiration of the time for filing a timely notice of
appeal or seeking an extension of time to file the notice of appeal from the trial court’s March
10, 2022 order denying his motion to reduce bond.
         “[A]ppeals by either the State or the defendant in a criminal case are permitted only when
they are specifically authorized by statute.” State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915
(Tex. Crim. App. 2011). This Court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal
except as provided by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2, 26.3;
see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918
S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely
filed and he did not file a motion for extension with this Court within the time prescribed by Rule
26.3, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see
also TEX. R. APP. 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 the Legislature 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) (noting that appeal was not
from pretrial habeas application); see also McCarver v. State, 257 S.W.3d 512, 515 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008,
no pet.). “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.”
Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Thus, 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 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.).

                                                          2
                                 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 from the 392nd District Court
                    of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR22-0031-392)

                   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