Ex Parte: Pauline Coronado v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 21, 2024
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00743-CR
No. 05-24-00744-CR
No. 05-24-00745-CR
No. 05-24-00746-CR
No. 05-24-00747-CR
EX PARTE PAULINE CORONADO
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. WX-24-91259, WX-24-91260, WX-24-91261,
WX-24-91262, and WX-24-91352
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Goldstein, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
Appellant Pauline Coronado appeals from the trial court’s denial of her
pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus, in which she sought a bond reduction.
The reporter’s record demonstrates the trial court conducted a hearing on June 6,
2024, at which time it denied appellant’s applications and ruled the bond remain at
$250,000. The docket sheet also reflects denial of the habeas application.
Appellant’s notice of appeal states that she appeals from the “trial court’s Order
denying writ of habeas corpus seeking reasonable bond.” The clerk’s records,
however, contain no written order denying her applications.
On July 25, 2024, Coronado was informed the clerk’s records were
incomplete because they did not contain the trial court’s order denying habeas relief.
Coronado has not provided this Court with an order denying habeas relief.
The court of criminal appeals has held a “trial court’s oral pronouncements on
the record do not constitute appealable orders.” State v. Wachtendorf, 475 S.W.3d
895, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). “Only a writing suffices.” State v. Sanavongxay,
407 S.W.3d 252, 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Moreover, a docket entry is not
tantamount to an order. Payne v. State, No. 12-17-00143-CR, 2017 WL 2570829, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 14, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication); see State v. Shaw, 4 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, no
pet.).
Here, the record contains no written order denying appellant’s habeas
application, and neither an oral pronouncement nor a docket sheet entry is sufficient
to comprise an appealable, written order. See Wachtendorf, 475 S.W.3d at 903; see
also Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d at 258; Payne, 2017 WL 2570829, at *1 (dismissing
appeal from pretrial habeas application for want of jurisdiction absent written order);
see also Walton v. State, No. 02-18-00396-CR, 2018 WL 6424242, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Dec. 6, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction because appellate court had not received
–2–
“a written order from the trial court—a prerequisite to appealability”); Ex parte
Wiley, 949 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). Accordingly, we
dismiss appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2 (f).
/Robbie Partida-Kipness/
ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS
Do Not Publish JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
240743F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE PAULINE On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
CORONADO District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. WX-24-
No. 05-24-00743-CR 91259.
Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
Kipness. Justices Goldstein and
Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2 (f).
Judgment entered this 21st day of November 2024.
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE PAULINE On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
CORONADO District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. WX-24-
No. 05-24-00744-CR 91260.
Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
Kipness. Justices Goldstein and
Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2 (f).
Judgment entered this 21st day of November 2024.
–5–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE PAULINE On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
CORONADO District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. WX-24-
No. 05-24-00745-CR 91261.
Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
Kipness. Justices Goldstein and
Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2 (f).
Judgment entered this 21st day of November 2024.
–6–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE PAULINE On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
CORONADO District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. WX-24-
No. 05-24-00746-CR 91262.
Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
Kipness. Justices Goldstein and
Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2 (f).
Judgment entered this 21st day of November 2024.
–7–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
EX PARTE PAULINE On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
CORONADO District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. WX-24-
No. 05-24-00747-CR 91352.
Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
Kipness. Justices Goldstein and
Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for
want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2 (f).
Judgment entered this 21st day of November 2024.
–8–