EX PARTE: Sean Leyendecker v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

CONCUR and Opinion Filed April 27, 2023
S In the
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-01369-CR
EX PARTE SEAN LEYENDECKER
On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 219-03832-2022
CONCURRING OPINION
Opinion by Justice Kennedy
I concur in the majority’s decision to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion the trial court
lacked authority to consider and rule on appellant’s December 2, 2022 motion.
Instead, I conclude the trial court had jurisdiction to consider and rule on appellant’s
motion and that the trial court’s ruling thereon is interlocutory and not subject to
appeal.
TRIAL COURT JURISDICTION OVER BOND ISSUES
Article 17.09 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that once a
defendant has posted bond, that bond is valid and binding for the duration of the case
before the trial court, any transferee court, and for all subsequent proceedings
relative to the charge. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.09, § 1. Thus, the
bond, and the requirement that the defendant appear for trial proceedings, follows
the defendant’s case regardless of the court to which the case may be assigned. See
id. A trial court may require the bond be adjusted if the court determines the bond
is defective, excessive, or insufficient, has unacceptable sureties, or for other good
and sufficient cause. Id. at art. 17.09, § 3; Ex parte Gomez, 624 S.W.3d 573, 575–
76 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).
Thus, in this case, the trial court retained the authority to monitor the status of
appellant’s case and adjust his bond and conditions as necessary. See Gomez, 624
S.W.3d at 575–76. Consequently, the trial court had the authority to consider and
rule on appellant’s December 2 motion.
APPELLATE COURT JURISDICTION
With respect to this court’s jurisdiction, we may exercise jurisdiction only
when authorized by statute. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). Generally, a criminal defendant may appeal only from a final judgment. See
State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Ex parte Evans,
611 S.W.3d 86, 87 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, no pet.). We do not have jurisdiction
to review interlocutory orders absent an express grant of jurisdiction by law.
Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Nothing in Article 17.09, or in Chapter 17 generally, provides for the right to
file an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s rulings on motions seeking bail. See
–2–
Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52 (“There is no constitutional or statutory authority
granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding
excessive bail or the denial of bail”). As a result, whether a defendant can obtain
appellate review of the trial court’s bail determinations depends on how the matter
is raised in the trial court.
A defendant may appeal an adverse ruling on a pretrial application for writ of
habeas corpus requesting relief on a bond, but the defendant may not appeal an
adverse ruling on an interlocutory motion requesting relief on the bond. See id.; Ex
parte Carter, 621 S.W.3d 355, 357–58 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, no pet.); see
also Ex parte Hernandez, No. 04-20-00395-CR, 2020 WL 6749045, at *1 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio Nov. 18, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication); Sanderson v. State, No. 02-20-00006-CR, 2020 WL 827590, at *1
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 20, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication).
Because appellant seeks relief from an adverse ruling on an interlocutory
motion seeking relief from the terms and conditions of his bond, this Court lacks
jurisdiction over his appeal.
–3–
Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s decision dismissing this case for want
of jurisdiction.
/Nancy Kennedy/
NANCY KENNEDY
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
221369CF.U05
–4–