Opinion
No. 06-20-00122-CR
03-31-2021
EX PARTE RYAN ROBIN RICHARDS
On Appeal from the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2020-3182-1 Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ryan Robin Richards appeals from the trial court's order denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus that sought a reduction of his alleged $200,000.00 bail. Because bail was never set at $200,000.00 in this case, bail was set at $15,000.00 in this case, and Richards never filed a motion to reduce that bail, Richards does not complain of an appealable order entered in this case. As a result, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The trial court's cause number in this case is 2020-3182-CL. In a different case, trial court cause number 2020-739-CL, Richards was indicted for family violence assault by occlusion. His violation of bond conditions in that case, including a failure to appear, led to forfeiture of his bond, as well as the unindicted charges in this case for continuous violence against family, a third-degree felony, and violation of a protective order, a misdemeanor. Even though a $15,000.00 bond had been set for continuous family violence and he was not being held on the misdemeanor charge, Richards filed a motion to reduce bond, which mistakenly misrepresented that his bail was set at $200,000.00.
At the hearing on his application, the 19th Judicial District Court of McLennan County clarified that the only bond at issue in this case was $15,000.00, not $200,000.00 as Richards had represented. The hearing then morphed into a bond reduction hearing in cause number 2020-739-CL on the family violence assault by occlusion case because no bond had been set in that case after Richards's bond was forfeited. As a result of the hearing, the trial court considered Richards's bond reduction application as being filed in the family violence assault by occlusion case, granted that motion after handwriting the cause number "20-739-Cl" on the order, and set his bail in that case at $200,000.00. See TEX. CODE CRIM PROC. ANN. art. 17.15.
Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. --------
On appeal, Richards complains that the trial court abused its discretion when it allegedly refused to reduce his $200,000.00 bail in this case. Yet, our review of the record, described above, did not show either that $200,000.00 bail was set in this case or that the trial court denied an application for a writ of habeas corpus in this case. Rather, the record and order entered by the trial court created an ambiguity because it was subject to at least the following interpretations: (1) the order granted a motion to reduce bail only in cause number 2020-739-CL and denied a motion to reduce a $15,000.00 bond in 2020-3182-CL; (2) the order granted a motion to reduce bail in both cases, set bail at $200,000.00 in cause number 2020-739-CL, and failed to set an amount of bail in cause number 2020-3182-CL; (3) the order set bail at $200,000.00 in both cause numbers, or (4) the order granted a motion to reduce bail only in cause number 2020-739-CL but did not rule as to cause number 2020-3182-CL. Because correction of this ambiguity was required for the proper presentation of this case, including resolution of the question of whether this Court had jurisdiction to address Richards's point of error on appeal, we abated this case on March 5, 2021, under Rule 44.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, to provide the trial court with the opportunity to correct the ambiguity. As a result, the trial court found, in a manner consistent with the reporter's record, that the order setting a $200,000.00 bail was only entered in cause number 2020-739-CL. As a result, there was no order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus in this case.
On March 9, 2021, we notified Richards of this potential defect in our jurisdiction and afforded him an opportunity to show this Court how it had jurisdiction over the appeal, notwithstanding the noted defect. We further informed Richards that failure to respond by March 24, 2021, would result in dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Richards did not file a response.
Because Richards has not appealed from an appealable order entered in this case, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice Date Submitted: March 30, 2021
Date Decided: March 31, 2021 Do Not Publish