Ex Parte: Isisah Sheppard v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00197-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§ APPEAL FROM THE 217TH EX PARTE: § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ISISAH SHEPPARD § ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Isisah Sheppard, acting pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus to complain of his $97,500 bond amount. On August 1, 2023, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the information received in this appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., there is no final judgment or appealable order included therewith. The notice warned that the appeal would be dismissed unless Appellant amended the information on or before August 11 to show this Court’s jurisdiction. This deadline passed without a response from Appellant or an amended notice of appeal. An appellate court has no original habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. In re Ayers, 515 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West 2009). Original jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal matter is vested in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or a judge in those courts. Ayers, 515 S.W.3d at 356; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 11.05 (West 2005). Here, the Angelina County online records do not reflect that this proceeding arises from a ruling on any application for writ of habeas corpus filed in the trial court. Moreover, the Legislature has not vested appellate courts with jurisdiction to consider direct appeals from interlocutory pretrial bail rulings. Chestang v. State, No. 12-16- 00305-CR, 2017 WL 104637, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 11, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.). As the court of criminal appeals has explained, “[t]here is no constitutional or statutory authority granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail.” Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, we lack jurisdiction over Appellant’s habeas application. See id.; see also Mouton v. State, No. 12- 20-00034-CR, 2020 WL 6380336, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 30, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Thomas v. State, No. 05-20-00722-CR, 2020 WL 5757340, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 28, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Olageshin v. State, No. 04-20-00057-CR, 2020 WL 1159065, at *1 (Tex. App.— San Antonio Mar. 11, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Chestang, 2017 WL 104637, at *1; Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). For this reason, we dismiss the application for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. Opinion delivered on August 31, 2023. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 31, 2023

NO. 12-23-00197-CR

EX PARTE: ISISAH SHEPPARD

Appeal from the 217th District Court of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2020-0767)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the proceeding, and that the application for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this habeas proceeding be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.