Patrick Lenard v. State of Texas ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 12, 2014
    Court of Appeals
    S     In The
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-14-00767-CR
    PATRICK LENARD, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F12-62409-V
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Wright, and Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore
    Opinion by Justice FitzGerald
    Patrick Lenard is charged by indictment with aggravated kidnapping. The trial court set
    his bond at $1,282,000, but later reduced it to $1,000,000. Appellant was released on a $250,000
    surety bond. On June 4, 2014, the trial court held the bond was insufficient and raised it to
    $1,000,000. Appellant appealed the trial court’s order raising the bond. We conclude we lack
    jurisdiction over the appeal.
    “Jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to hear and determine a case.”1 The
    jurisdiction of an appellate court must be legally invoked, and, if not, the power of the court to
    1
    Olivo v. State, 
    918 S.W.2d 519
    , 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
    act is as absent as if it did not exist.2 “The standard to determine whether an appellate court has
    jurisdiction to hear and determine a case ‘is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but
    whether the appeal is authorized by law.’”3 The right to appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily
    created right.4             Appellate courts may consider appeals by criminal defendants only after
    conviction or the entry of an appealable order.5
    In Ragston v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that courts of appeals do
    not have jurisdiction over interlocutory orders regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail.6
    Because the order in this case appeared to be an interlocutory order, as opposed to a final order
    on a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, we directed the parties to address our
    jurisdiction over the appeal. In response, appellant asserted several bases by which the Court has
    jurisdiction. The State did not timely file a brief.
    Appellant first asserts that article 44.42 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is broad
    enough to provide appellate jurisdiction in this case. We disagree. First, article 44.42 is titled
    “[a]ppeal on forfeiture.” It provides a defendant the right to appeal from a “final judgment
    rendered upon a personal bond, bail bond, or bond taken for the prevention or suppression of
    offenses . . . .”7 Although arising out of prior criminal proceedings, “bail bond proceedings are
    independent from and collateral to the criminal prosecutions.”8
    2
    See 
    id. at 523.
         3
    Blanton v. State, 
    369 S.W.3d 894
    , 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting Abbott v. State, 
    271 S.W.3d 694
    , 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2008)).
    4
    See McKinney v. State, 
    207 S.W.3d 366
    , 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Griffin v. State, 
    145 S.W.3d 645
    , 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see
    also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006) (providing right of appeal for defendant); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2) (rules for appeal
    by defendant).
    5
    See Wright v. State, 
    969 S.W.2d 588
    , 589 (Tex. App.––Dallas 1998, no pet.).
    6
    Ragston v. State, 
    424 S.W.3d 49
    , 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
    7
    TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.42 (West 2006).
    8
    8 C.J.S. Bail § 264 (2005).
    –2–
    The order at issue here is neither a bond forfeiture nor a final judgment. Rather, it is an
    interlocutory order issued by the trial court raising appellant’s pretrial bond. Thus, we conclude
    article 44.42 does not give this Court jurisdiction over the appeal from the trial court’s order
    raising his bond.
    Appellant next asserts that although most appeals of bond issues are from orders on
    pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus, filing a writ application in this case would have
    been a useless act because the trial court had already held the bond insufficient. In support of his
    argument, appellant cites to language in Fletcher v. State,9 in which the court of criminal appeals
    quoted this Court’s statement that the “law does not require a useless thing to be done.”
    However, the court of criminal appeals went on to conclude this Court erred in taking judicial
    notice of its own mandate, thereby relieving the State of its burden to prove the finality of a
    conviction used for enhancement purposes, reversed our judgment, and remanded Fletcher’s case
    to the trial court for a new punishment hearing.10
    Appellant cites no case for the proposition that he may circumvent the proper procedure
    for seeking a reduction of his pretrial bond or obtaining appellate review of the trial court’s
    ruling. Therefore, we conclude his “useless act” argument does not support our jurisdiction over
    the appeal.
    Finally, appellant contends the broad terms of article 44.02 favor appealability. Again,
    we disagree. Article 44.02 provides for the right of a defendant to appeal following conviction.11
    Appellant is not appealing a judgment of conviction; thus article 44.02 does not give this Court
    jurisdiction over the appeal. Moreover, in Ragston, the court of criminal appeals specifically
    9
    
    214 S.W.3d 5
    , 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
    10
    
    Id. at 9.
       11
    TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02.
    –3–
    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.”12
    Because the order from which appellant seeks to appeal is an interlocutory order raising
    his pretrial bond, we conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for
    want of jurisdiction.
    /Kerry P. FitzGerald/
    Do Not Publish                                         KERRY P. FITZGERALD
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47                                     JUSTICE
    140767F.U05
    12
    
    Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52
    .
    –4–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    PATRICK LENARD, Appellant                          On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
    No. 7, Dallas County, Texas
    No. 05-14-00767-CR        V.                       Trial Court Cause No. F12-62409-V.
    Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald,
    Chief Justice Wright and Justice Fillmore
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                       participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of
    jurisdiction.
    Judgment entered September 12, 2014
    –5–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-14-00767-CR

Filed Date: 9/12/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/15/2015