Phillip Velazquez v. State
This text of Phillip Velazquez v. State (Phillip Velazquez v. State) 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
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-21-00030-CR
PHILLIP VELAZQUEZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 364th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017-411,477, Honorable William R. Eichman II, Presiding
March 9, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ.
Appellant Phillip Velazquez, appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial
court’s order denying his “Motion to Reduce Bail.” We dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
The minimal record before the Court reflects that Appellant was indicted for
aggravated robbery. On December 15, 2020, Appellant’s trial counsel filed a motion to reduce Appellant’s bail from $250,000 to $10,000. The trial court denied the motion in a
letter ruling dated January 21, 2021. Appellant appealed from the order, pro se.
In criminal cases, we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a judgment of
conviction or where jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. See Abbott v. State,
271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Because an order denying a motion to
reduce bail is neither a judgment of conviction nor an order from which an appeal is
specifically authorized by law, we have no jurisdiction over its appeal.1 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.”); Keaton v. State, 294 S.W.3d 870, 873 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont 2009, no pet.) (“[T]he Legislature did not provide appellate jurisdiction over a
direct appeal from an interlocutory pretrial order involving bail.”).
By letter of February 11, 2021, we directed Appellant to file a response showing
how we have jurisdiction over this appeal by February 22. Appellant has not filed a
response to our letter to date.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
1 We note that this is not an appeal from the trial court’s denial of an application for writ of habeas
corpus seeking bail reduction. See Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 649-50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“[W]e have also long recognized the separateness of pre- conviction habeas proceedings by permitting an immediate appeal from a denial of relief, before the trial proceedings in a criminal prosecution have been concluded.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Phillip Velazquez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillip-velazquez-v-state-texapp-2021.