Court Opinion

ID: 9412670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 12:08:16.843948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:29.688029
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-23-00225-CR

                             Phillip “Baby Shark” Scott, Appellant

                                                 v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

             FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF COMAL COUNTY
        NO. 2023-CR0165, THE HONORABLE RANDAL C. GRAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               After reviewing the record in this appeal, this Court’s clerk sent a letter to

appellant Phillip G. “Baby Shark” Scott asking for a response explaining the basis for the Court’s

jurisdiction over what he described in his notice of appeal as an interlocutory appeal. The letter

warned that a failure to respond within ten days with an adequate explanation for this Court’s

exercise of jurisdiction could result in dismissal of this cause for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

               A party in a criminal case may appeal only from judgments of conviction or

interlocutory orders authorized by statute. Mack v. State, 549 S.W.3d 746, 747 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2017, pet. ref’d); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02; Tex. R. App. P. 25.2. In his

Notice of Intent to Appeal, Scott contended that this court has jurisdiction to consider an

interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to reduce bail. However, the Court of Criminal

Appeals 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. Ragston

v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

               More than ten days have passed since this Court asked Scott to explain the basis

for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over any issue he raised in this interlocutory appeal. He

has not responded, and we find no basis on which to exercise jurisdiction.

               We dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

                                             __________________________________________
                                             Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 26, 2023

Do Not Publish

                                                2