Robert Lewis Ward v. State ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •               In the
    Court of Appeals
    Second Appellate District of Texas
    at Fort Worth
    ___________________________
    No. 02-21-00005-CR
    No. 02-21-00006-CR
    No. 02-21-00007-CR
    ___________________________
    ROBERT LEWIS WARD, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS
    On Appeal from the 432nd District Court
    Tarrant County, Texas
    Trial Court Nos. 1637148D, 1637193D, 1653809D
    Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
    Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    In his notice of appeal, Appellant Robert Lewis Ward stated that he was
    appealing various pretrial rulings concerning his three charges for violation of a
    protective order.    Those pretrial rulings related to the denial of bail and his
    competence.
    On February 1, 2021, we notified Ward of our concern that we lack jurisdiction
    over his appeals because the trial court had not entered any appealable orders. See
    McKown v. State, 
    915 S.W.2d 160
    , 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.)
    (per curiam) (noting that we generally have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a
    criminal case only when there has been a judgment of conviction). We stated that
    unless Ward or another party filed a response showing grounds for continuing the
    appeals, we would dismiss them for want of jurisdiction.
    Ward filed a pro se response in which he appeared to disclaim his intent to
    challenge any pretrial rulings except those relating to the denial of bail. To further the
    bail challenge, he accompanied his response with a “Motion to instate bond for my
    cases.”
    The right to appeal in criminal cases is conferred by the legislature, and a party
    may appeal only from judgments of conviction or orders authorized as appealable. See
    Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02; Ragston v. State, 
    424 S.W.3d 49
    , 52 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2014). “There is no constitutional or statutory authority granting the courts of
    appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial
    2
    of bail.” Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52. “The proper method for challenging the denial or
    excessiveness of bail, whether prior to trial or after conviction, is by habeas corpus.”
    Ex parte Gray, 
    564 S.W.2d 713
    , 714 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); White v. State,
    Nos. 02-17-00211-CR through 02-17-00213-CR, 
    2017 WL 3633301
    , at *1 n.2 (Tex.
    App.—Fort Worth Aug. 24, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
    Because we lack jurisdiction to review interlocutory appeals concerning the
    denial of bail, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. 1 See Tex. R. App. P.
    43.2(f); Hutchinson v. State, Nos. 02-17-00222-CR, 02-17-00223-CR, 
    2017 WL 3526365
    ,
    at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 17, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not
    designated for publication). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. See Nelson v.
    State, No. 01-15-00248-CR, 
    2015 WL 3981572
    , at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
    June 30, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
    Per Curiam
    Do Not Publish
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    Delivered: March 25, 2021
    1
    Our conclusion would not be altered even if Ward did not intend to abandon
    his challenge to the pretrial rulings concerning competency. See Boots v. State, Nos. 02-
    19-00315-CR, 02-19-00316-CR, 
    2019 WL 5251152
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
    Oct. 17, 2019, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
    (deeming competency-related order to be nonappealable).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-21-00005-CR

Filed Date: 3/25/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/29/2021