Bilal Muhammad v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§
BILAL MUHAMMAD, No. 08-21-00134-CR
§
Appellant, Appeal from the
§
v. 168th District Court
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, of El Paso County, Texas
§
Appellee. (20160D01015)
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Bilal Muhammad, pro se, is attempting to appeal the trial court’s order
denying his motion to modify bond. This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to
determine if it should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Because there is no appealable order,
we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
On May 6, 2021, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to modify his bond. The trial court,
on June 16, 2021, set a cash or surety bond of $500,000 for the murder indictment pending against
Appellant. On September 3, 2021, the Court’s clerk sent Appellant, Bilal Muhammad, pro se,
notice that it appeared there is no appealable order at issue in this case. Further, the notice included
our intent to dismiss for want of jurisdiction in ten days absent showing a basis to continue the
appeal. Appellant did not file a responsive answer to our request.
The Legislature has not vested appellate courts with jurisdiction to consider direct appeals
from interlocutory pretrial bail rulings. Chestang v. State, Nos. 12-16-00305-CR & 12-16-00306-
CR, 2017 WL 104637, at *1 (Tex.App.—Tyler Jan. 11, 2017, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated
for publication)(per curiam); see also McCarver v. State, 257 S.W.3d 512, 515 (Tex.App.—
Texarkana 2008, no pet.). As the court of criminal appeals has explained, “[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). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s appeal from the
trial court’s pretrial bail ruling in this case. See id.; Thomas v. State, No. 05-20-00722-CR, 2020
WL 5757340, at *1 (Tex.App.—Dallas Sept. 28, 2020, no pet. h.)(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.).
Appellant’s pending motion for en banc consideration of his extension request is denied as
moot.
We dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.
October 27, 2021
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
2