Michael Alexander v. State ( 2014 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00337-CR
Michael Alexander, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-DC-13-201709, HONORABLE KAREN SAGE, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Michael Alexander was charged with the felony offense of assault
family violence, habitual offender. After the amount of bond was set at $500,000, Alexander filed
a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, seeking to reduce the amount of bond to an
unspecified amount below $100,000, an amount which Alexander claimed was “excessive and
unreasonable.” The district court held a hearing on the application. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the district court lowered the bond amount to $200,000 but otherwise denied relief. Alexander has
filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s ruling from the bench.
It is well established that a written and signed appealable order is a prerequisite to
invoking this Court’s appellate jurisdiction.1 No such order appears in the record.2 We do not have
jurisdiction to review the district court’s ruling from the bench.3
In a case in which there has been a ruling from the bench but no written order has
been entered, we would ordinarily treat the notice of appeal as prematurely filed, abate the appeal,
and remand the case to the trial court for preparation of an appealable order.4 In this case, however,
there is an additional jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured. While this appeal was pending,
Alexander was tried and convicted of the offense for which he was charged.5 Because Alexander
is no longer subject to pretrial confinement, the appeal of the district court’s ruling on Alexander’s
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1); State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398, 402 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); Dewalt v. State, 417 S.W.3d 678, 685 n.32 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. ref’d); Ortiz
v. State, 299 S.W.3d 930, 933 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, no pet.); State v. Cox, 235 S.W.3d 283,
285 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.); State v. Shaw, 4 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Tex. App.—Dallas
1999, no pet.); see also Broussard v. State, No. 01-10-00458-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 8360,
at *3-5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 14, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (collecting cases holding that docket-sheet entries and oral rulings from bench do not
qualify as appealable orders).
2
Additionally, the record is lacking a trial-court certification of Alexander’s right of appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).
3
See State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 258-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (“[W]ithout
‘an order,’ we have no evidence of the required finality of a ruling; an oral ruling is subject to change
after further discussion or presentation of contrary law or precedent. Only a writing suffices.”).
4
See Tex. R. App. P. 27.1(b); Dewalt, 417 S.W.3d at 685 n.32; Ex parte Crenshaw,
25 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d); State v. Rollins, 4 S.W.3d
453, 454 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.).
5
Alexander’s appeal from his conviction is currently pending in this Court under appellate
cause number 03-14-00290-CR.
2
pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus has been rendered moot, and we therefore lack
jurisdiction to consider it.6
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
__________________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: July 18, 2014
Do Not Publish
6
See Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Armendarez v. State,
798 S.W.2d 291, 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Henriksen v. State, 500 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1973); Delangel v. State, 132 S.W.3d 491, 494 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.);
Oldham v. State, 5 S.W.3d 840, 846 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d); Bennet
v. State, 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.).
3