Alan D. Frey III v. the State of Texas
This text of Alan D. Frey III v. the State of Texas (Alan D. Frey III v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00093-CR
Alan D. FREY III, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2025CR002806 Honorable Miguel Najera, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 9, 2025
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Alan D. Frey III filed a pro se notice of appeal. The clerk’s record does not contain a final
judgment of conviction. The only order contained in the clerk’s record is a magistrate’s order
setting Frey’s bond at $15,000.00. 1 Thus, it appears that Frey is attempting to appeal from an
interlocutory order.
1 The supplemental clerk’s record shows after the magistrate set Frey’s bond, Frey was indicted for theft of property and unauthorized use of a vehicle. 04-25-00093-CR
“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). An order setting bond is not an appealable interlocutory order. Sanchez v. State,
340 S.W.3d 848, 849 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.) (concluding pretrial order setting
bond amount was not appealable and dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction); McCarver v. State,
257 S.W.3d 512, 515 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.) (concluding Legislature has not
provided courts of appeals with jurisdiction over “direct appeal[s] from interlocutory pretrial
orders involving bail.”); see also Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (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.”).
We ordered Frey to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction; however, Frey did not respond. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
Do Not Publish
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Alan D. Frey III v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alan-d-frey-iii-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.