Ex Parte: Rylnel Maurice Prince

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 16, 2022
• Docket: 05-22-00254-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed June 16, 2022

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00254-CR

EX PARTE RYLNEL MAURICE PRINCE

On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 21-50438-422-F

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Reichek Rylnel Maurice Prince appeals the trial court’s determination to not reduce his

pretrial bail. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The record shows appellant’s original counsel filed an application for writ of

habeas corpus seeking a reduction in his $150,000 bail. Original counsel withdrew

from representation before the trial court ruled on the application and a second

counsel was appointed. On November 2, 2021, appellant’s second appointed counsel

filed another application for writ of habeas corpus seeking a reduction in bail. On

December 15, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on appellant’s writ

application. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court left appellant’s $150,000

bond unchanged. The trial court documented its oral ruling with a written order signed and filed on December 15, 2021. No timely appeal was taken from the trial

court’s order.

Subsequently, appellant’s second counsel was permitted to withdraw from

representation and, after a brief period of representation by a public defender,

appellant began representing himself. Appellant has filed six applications for writ of

habeas corpus, none of which appear to be have been taken up by the trial court.

There are no written orders addressing any of the pro se habeas applications.

The record further shows appellant filed a “notice of appeal for bond

reduction” on March 8, 2022, and a “notice of appeal for bail reduction” on March

24, 2022. Only the second notice of appeal was forwarded to this Court.

To appeal a trial court ruling denying habeas relief, an appellant must timely

file a sufficient notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(b). To be timely filed, the

notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the day the trial court enters

an appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d

108, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). An appealable order is entered when the trial court

signs a written order. See State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2012); Rodarte, 860 S.W.2d at 110; State ex rel. Sutton v. Bage, 822 S.W.2d

55, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

In this case, appellant’s notices of appeal were filed too late to appeal the trial

court’s December 15, 2022 written order denying habeas relief. See TEX. R. APP. P.

–2– 26.2(a)(1); Rodarte, 860 S.W.2d at 110. There are no written orders ruling on any of

appellant’s pro se habeas applications. Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction

over the appeal. See Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d at 259.

By letter issued April 18, 2022, the Court informed appellant that it questioned

its jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court’s letter warned that it might dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction after May 9, 2022 unless either a supplemental clerk’s

record was filed showing the trial court had ruled on one of appellant’s pro se

applications for writ of habeas corpus or appellant filed a letter brief showing the

Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. To date, no supplemental clerk’s record

containing a final order has been filed, and appellant has not filed a letter brief

explaining any basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction.

Concluding we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

/Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK 220254f.u05 JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

–3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

EX PARTE RYLNEL MAURICE On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial PRINCE District Court, Kaufman County, Texas No. 05-22-00254-CR Trial Court Cause No. 21-50438-422- F. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek. Justices Molberg and Garcia participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 16th day of June, 2022.

–4–