Ex Parte: John Nathaniel Thompson ( 2022 )

Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 31, 2022
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00752-CR
EX PARTE JOHN NATHANIEL THOMPSON
On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 219-80629-2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Partida-Kipness
Opinion by Justice Osborne
John Nathaniel Thompson has filed a notice of appeal stating he is appealing
“the trial court’s judgment rendered on August 16, 2021.” After reviewing the
record, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction to review this case.
The clerk’s record shows that, although he is represented by counsel, appellant
filed both a pro se motion to reduce his bond and a pro se application for writ of
habeas corpus seeking a bond. The clerk’s record does not contain a final, written
order ruling on either the bond reduction motion or the application for writ of habeas
corpus. According to the trial court’s docket sheet, the trial court conducted a “bond
hearing” on August 16, 2021 and denied a “bond reduction.”
The reporter’s record shows the trial court conducted a pretrial hearing on
August 16, 2021 to review appellant’s bonds in three cases, including the current
one. The trial court stated it was its “understanding that we have a request today to
lower the bond amounts.” Trial counsel represented appellant during the hearing
and advocated for a lower bond. Trial counsel called appellant to testify.
During his testimony, appellant testified about his connections to Collin
County and his criminal history. Appellant admitted he had been released on bond
for the current state jail felony offense for possession of methamphetamine in an
amount less than one gram and for a second misdemeanor drug possession offense.
He was taken into custody again after his bond company had filed an Affidavit of
Surety to Surrender Principal asking to surrender him to the Collin County Sheriff.
According to the affidavit, appellant was not checking in or updating the bond
company about his address and attempts to contact him had been unsuccessful.
Appellant also testified he was arrested and charged with two new offenses for
evidence tampering in Dallas County and first-degree felony drug possession in
Collin County.
After hearing the evidence, the trial court ruled: “I do have serious concerns,
Mr. Thompson, because of how many times you’ve been out on bond and you’ve
already had your bonding company going off of it once with additional allegations
of crimes being committed while out on bond. So the request to lower bond is
denied.”
–2–
Appellant may appeal the denial of habeas relief, but the Court does not have
jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from denial of a motion to reduce a pretrial bond.
See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Ex parte
Peyton, No. 02-16-00029-CR, 2016 WL 2586698, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
May 5, 2016, pet. dism’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (court of
appeals has jurisdiction to review denial of habeas relief, but not denial of motion
seeking bail reduction).
To perfect an appeal from the denial of habeas relief, there must be a signed
appealable order. See Smith v. State, 559 S.W.3d 527, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018);
State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Westbrook v.
State, 753 S.W.2d 158, 159–60 & n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); see also Ex parte
Terry, No. 12-20-00006-CR, 2020 WL 827591, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 19,
2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (habeas appeal seeking
bond reduction must be dismissed if no final written order has been entered). The
trial court enters an appealable order when it signs a written order. See State ex rel.
Sutton v. Bage, 822 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (orig. proceeding)
(determining that phrase “entered by the court” encompasses signing of written order
by trial court); A trial court’s docket sheet entry does not constitute an appealable
order. See State v. Shaw, 4 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, no pet.).
–3–
Appellant filed both a motion to reduce his bond and a writ application
arguing for a lower bond. Nothing in the reporter’s record from the hearing shows
the trial court ever entertained appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The words “habeas” and “writ” were never mentioned during the August 16, 2021
hearing. The trial court orally denied a “request” to reduce appellant’s bonds—a
ruling that appears to deny appellant’s pro se motion to reduce his bonds rather than
to deny habeas relief. Moreover, the trial court has not entered any written orders in
this case on either matter.
The Court solicited jurisdictional letter briefs from appellant and the State to
address the jurisdictional issues in this case. Appellant filed a pro se letter requesting
that his writ application be granted or denied, a short brief arguing the trial court
erred in not granting habeas relief, a new habeas application addressed to the trial
court, a request to the trial court to reduce his bonds, and a motion to compel the trial
court to enter a final, written order on his habeas application. The State did not file
a response. None of the documents appellant filed shows this Court has jurisdiction
over this appeal.
Because the record does not show the trial court ever considered the habeas
application, and further does not show the trial court has entered an appealable order,
appellant’s notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction upon the Court. See Smith,
559 S.W.3d at 535; Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52; Henderson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 735,
–4–
735–36 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.); Ex parte Evans, 611 S.W.3d 86, 88 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2020, no pet.).
Concluding we lack jurisdiction, we deny appellant’s motion to compel and
we dismiss the appeal.
/Leslie Osborne//
LESLIE OSBORNE
JUSTICE
210752f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–5–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE JOHN NATHANIEL On Appeal from the 219th Judicial
THOMPSON District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 219-80629-
No. 05-21-00752-CR 2021.
Opinion delivered by Justice
Osborne. Justices Schenck and
Partida-Kipness participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered this 31st day of January, 2022.
–6–