From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anders v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
May 28, 2008
No. 10-08-00019-CR (Tex. App. May. 28, 2008)

Opinion

No. 10-08-00019-CR

Opinion delivered and filed May 28, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appeal from the 13th District Court, Navarro County, Texas, Trial Court No. 31700. Appeal dismissed.

Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Kevin Anders seeks to appeal the trial court's denial of a motion to reduce his pretrial bail under Rule of Appellate Procedure 31. However, this Court has determined that, even though Rule 31 establishes the procedures to be followed in an appeal from an order "in a bail proceeding," Rule 31 is not a jurisdictional statute, and "[n]o statute vests this Court with jurisdiction over direct appeals of pre-trial bail rulings." Benford v. State, 994 S.W.2d 404, 409 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.); accord Vargas v. State, 109 S.W.3d 26, 29 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003, no pet.); Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842, 844-47 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, no pet.); see also State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 413 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) ("our caselaw prevents a court of appeals from using an appellate rule to create jurisdiction where none exists"). Courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by the Texas Constitution or by some "statutory provision." See Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (citing TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6); accord Vargas, 109 S.W.3d at 29; Benford, 994 S.W.2d at 409; Shumake, 953 S.W.2d at 844. However, a number of our sister courts have recognized limited exceptions to this jurisdictional principle, including in particular, an appeal from the denial of a motion to reduce bail. See, e.g., Ramos v. State, 89 S.W.3d 122, 125-26 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.); Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 160-61 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no pet.); Clark v. Barr, 827 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). The jurisdiction of this Court cannot be established by judicial fiat. Therefore, we continue to adhere to our holding in Benford that no statute vests this Court with jurisdiction over an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to reduce (or granting a motion to increase) bail. Cf. Richardson v. State, 181 S.W.3d 756, 758 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, no pet.) (interlocutory appeal is permitted from the denial of habeas application challenging the amount of pretrial bail). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.


Summaries of

Anders v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
May 28, 2008
No. 10-08-00019-CR (Tex. App. May. 28, 2008)
Case details for

Anders v. State

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN ANDERS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco

Date published: May 28, 2008

Citations

No. 10-08-00019-CR (Tex. App. May. 28, 2008)