Damonta Quinn Moore v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 8, 2024
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-01153-CR
No. 05-23-01267-CR
No. 05-23-01268-CR
No. 05-23-01269-CR
DAMONTA QUINN MOORE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F20-75906, F18-42004, F19-40652, F21-77000
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Garcia, and Justice Kennedy
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
Appellant’s notice of appeal of these cases states he is appealing: “the pretrial
Writ of Habeas Corpus bond order entered by the Criminal District Court No. 3 on
October 30, 2023.” However, the clerk’s records and the reporter’s records do not
show appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus or that the trial court
ruled on an application for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss these appeals for want
of jurisdiction.
This Court has jurisdiction to review an adverse ruling on a pretrial application
for writ of habeas corpus requesting relief on a bond, but we do not have jurisdiction
to hear interlocutory appeals regarding orders involving a bond. See 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 of bail.”); Keaton v. State¸ 204 S.W.3d 870,
873 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.) (“The Legislature did not provide
appellate jurisdiction over a direct appeal from an interlocutory pretrial order
involving bail.”); see also Ex parte Leyendecker, No. 05-22-01369-CR, 2023 WL
3114676, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 27, 2023, no pet.) (Kennedy, J., concurring)
(“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.”).
No application for writ of habeas corpus is in the clerk’s records, and no
mention of an application for writ of habeas corpus is made in the reporter’s record.
The reporter’s record of the October 30, 2023 hearing shows the trial court granted
the State’s motion for continuance and then told appellant, “because your case is not
being tried in the month of October, your attorney is requesting the Court to
reconsider the bond amounts, so that’s the purpose of . . . this trial.” At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court reduced appellant’s bond by half in each
case: from $30,000 to $15,000 in 05-23-01267-CR (F18-42004) and 05-23-01268-
–2–
CR (F19-40652), from $100,000 to $50,000 in 05-23-01153-CR (F20-75906), and
from $1 million to $500,000 in 05-23-01269-CR (F21-77000). However, the
reporter’s record and the clerk’s records do not indicate the trial court’s order was
pursuant to a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus.
These appeals concern the trial court’s orders on counsel’s request for bond
reduction, and the records show the trial court reduced appellant’s bond by half in
each case. An appeal from such a ruling is not permitted. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d
at 52; Keaton, 204 S.W.3d at 873. Because the appellate records do not include an
order on an application for writ of habeas corpus, the records do not demonstrate
that this Court has jurisdiction over these appeals. See Almendarezavila v. State, No.
05-20-00782-CR, 2020 WL 5757339 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 28, 2020, no pet.)
(dismissing pretrial appeal for want of jurisdiction when hearing on bond reduction
was not treated as pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus by the parties or trial
court).
We requested the parties to file letter briefs concerning our jurisdiction over
these appeals. Both appellant and the State filed letter briefs. The State asserts we
lack jurisdiction over these appeals. Appellant’s letter brief asserts the trial court
abused its discretion by not reducing his bond to an amount he could afford to pay,
but appellant does not point out where the record shows the trial court’s ruling was
on an application for writ of habeas corpus, and appellant did not supplement the
–3–
record with any application for writ of habeas corpus that was before the trial court
on October 30, 2023, or any order on an application for writ of habeas corpus.
We conclude we lack jurisdiction over these appeals. We dismiss these
appeals for want of jurisdiction.
/Robert D. Burns, III/
ROBERT D. BURNS, III
Do Not Publish CHIEF JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
231153F.U05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DAMONTA QUINN MOORE, On Appeal from the Criminal District
Appellant Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F20-75906.
No. 05-23-01153-CR V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
Burns. Justices Garcia and Kennedy
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for
want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered February 8, 2024
–5–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DAMONTA QUINN MOORE, On Appeal from the Criminal District
Appellant Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F18-42004.
No. 05-23-01267-CR V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
Burns. Justices Garcia and Kennedy
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for
want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered February 8, 2024
–6–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DAMONTA QUINN MOORE, On Appeal from the Criminal District
Appellant Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F19-40652.
No. 05-23-01268-CR V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
Burns. Justices Garcia and Kennedy
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for
want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered February 8, 2024
–7–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DAMONTA QUINN MOORE, On Appeal from the Criminal District
Appellant Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F21-77000.
No. 05-23-01269-CR V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
Burns. Justices Garcia and Kennedy
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for
want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered February 8, 2024
–8–