Opinion
No. 10-19-00216-CR No. 10-19-00217-CR No. 10-19-00218-CR
12-18-2019
EX PARTE WILLIAM RITTENBAUGH
From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. F085-19 , F354-18 & F256-18
MEMORANDUM OPINION
William Rittenbaugh appeals from the trial court's denial of his applications for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
In Cause No. 10-19-00218-CR (Trial Court Cause No. F256-18), William Rittenbaugh was arrested for the offense of theft of cattle on June 21, 2018. He was released on bond for that offense shortly after his arrest. Rittenbaugh was indicted for that offense on July 16, 2018.
In Cause No. 10-19-00217-CR (Trial Court Cause No. F354-18), Rittenbaugh was arrested for the offense of misapplication of fiduciary property on September 24, 2018. He was again released on bond. He was indicted for that offense on October 9, 2018.
In Cause No. 10-19-00216-CR (Trial Court Cause No.F085-19), Rittenbaugh was arrested for the offense of theft of cattle on December 30, 2018. He was indicted for that offense on March 1, 2019.
Rittenbaugh was indicted in another cause, but that cause is not part of this appeal.
On May 9, 2019, Rittenbaugh filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in all three cause numbers alleging the combined bail for all of his indicted cases was excessive and in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and Section 13 Article I of the Texas Constitution. On May 28, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the application and on May 29, 2019, the trial court ordered Rittenbaugh held without bail in all three cause numbers. On May 31, 2019, the trial court reinstated the bond in Cause No. 10-19-00216-CR (Trial Court Cause No. F085-19) to the previous amount of $25,000 for that case only.
In the sole issue on appeal, Rittenbaugh argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to lower his bail. In his notice of appeal, Rittenbaugh states that he appeals the "order of the court denying his Writ of Habeas Corpus and the court denying relief and further denying lowering his bond." Rittenbaugh asks this Court to reverse the judgment of the trial court denying habeas relief and render judgment setting reasonable bail. There is no order in the record denying Rittenbaugh's application for writ of habeas corpus.
In the record there is what appears to be a letter order rescinding the "prior orders" and ordering Rittenbaugh "held without bail until the trials of these cases conclude." Article I Section 11a of the Texas Constitution provides:
(a) Any person (1) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, who has been theretofore twice convicted of a felony, the second conviction being subsequent to the first, both in point of time of commission of the offense and conviction therefor, (2) accused of a felony less than capital in this State, committed while on bail for a prior felony for which he has been indicted, (3) accused of a felony less than capital in this State involving the use of a deadly weapon after being convicted of a prior felony, or (4) accused of a violent or sexual offense committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State for a prior felony, after a hearing, and upon evidence substantially showing the guilt of the accused of the offense in (1) or (3) above, of the offense committed while on bail in (2) above, or of the offense in (4) above committed while under the supervision of a criminal justice agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State for a prior felony, may be denied bail pending trial, by a district judge in this State, if said order denying bail pending trial is issued within seven calendar days subsequent to the time of incarceration of the accused; provided, however, that if the accused is not accorded a trial upon the accusation under (1) or (3) above, the accusation and indictment used under (2) above, or the accusation or indictment used under (4) above within sixty (60) days from the time of his incarceration upon the accusation, the order denying bail shall be automatically set aside, unless a continuance is obtained upon the motion or request of the accused; provided, further, that the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals of this State is expressly accorded the accused for a review of any judgment or order made hereunder, and said appeal shall be given preference by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The trial court found that Rittenbaugh was arrested while free on bond for two felony offenses. It appears that the trial court denied bail under the provisions of Article I, Section 11a of the Texas Constitution. The Court of Criminal Appeals is vested with exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from orders denying bail entered pursuant to Article I, Section 11a of the Texas Constitution. Kelley v. State, 785 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). When a party attempts to appeal from an order denying bail under Article I, Section 11a in the Court of Appeals, we have no option other than to order the appeal dismissed due to that lack of jurisdiction. Id. Therefore, we dismiss Cause Nos. 10-19-00217-CR and 10-19-00218-CR for lack of jurisdiction.
In Cause No. 10-19-00216-CR, the trial court reinstated the bond to the previous amount of $25,000. Rittenbaugh's wife testified that she and her family could pay $50,000 toward his bonds. The fee for a $25,000 bond is below that amount. However, in the notice of appeal, Rittenbaugh states that he is appealing the order denying his Writ of Habeas Corpus and denying relief. There is no such order in the record before this Court. Because there is no appealable order, we dismiss Cause No. 10-19-00216-CR.
JOHN E. NEILL
Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
Appeals dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed December 18, 2019
Do not publish
[CR25]