Eleuterio Zuniga, Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 11, 2025
• Docket: 10-25-00250-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00250-CR

Eleuterio Zuniga, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas Judge John L. Brick, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 24-03006-CRF-272

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court denied a motion to set bond filed in the underlying case

by Eleuterio Zuniga, Jr. Zuniga appealed the denial to this Court. The State

filed a motion to dismiss Zuniga’s appeal because it is interlocutory, and this

Court has no jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of an order denying

bail. Zuniga did not respond to the State’s motion.

The State is correct. The Court of Criminal Appeals has said, "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." Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to decide Zuniga’s interlocutory appeal of

the trial court's order on denying his motion for bond. See id. Thus, we grant

the State's motion and dismiss Zuniga's appeal 1 for want of jurisdiction.

LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: September 11, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Motion granted Appeal dismissed Do Not Publish CR25

1 This dismissal of the appeal, however, is without prejudice to Zuniga applying for appropriate habeas corpus relief in the trial court. See Ex parte Gray, 564 S.W.2d 713, 714 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (“The proper method for challenging the denial or excessiveness of bail, whether prior to trial or after conviction, is by habeas corpus”).

Zuniga v. State Page 2