Opinion
No. 04-15-00756-CR
01-06-2016
Samuel Charles PERKINS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. CM021774; CM022492; CM021771; CM021770; CM022491; CM022493;
Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Samuel C. Perkins filed a notice of appeal stating he is appealing the trial court's order modifying the conditions of his pretrial bond in ten cases pending in the district courts of Bexar County.
"The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law." Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A trial court's order on a motion to modify the amount or conditions of a pretrial bond is not authorized by statute and is not appealable. See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49 (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."); Sanchez v. State, 340 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet) (holding court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over appeal of pretrial order on motion for reduction of bond); Lewis v. State, No. 04-06-00538-CR, 2006 WL 3613197, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 13, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal of trial court's order denying motion to modify the conditions of pretrial bond); Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal of order requiring ignition interlock device installed on vehicle as a condition of pretrial bond).
On December 11, 2015, we notified Perkins that the record raised an issue regarding our jurisdiction over the appeal. We ordered Perkins to file a response by December 21, 2015, showing why the appeal should not be dismissed. Perkins did not respond to our order.
Because this appeal is not authorized by law, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM Do not publish