Ex Parte Juan Hernandez ( 2020 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-20-00395-CR & No. 04-20-00397-CR
EX PARTE Juan HERNANDEZ
From the County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 641471 & 641472
Honorable Rosie S. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 18, 2020
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Appellant Juan Hernandez appeals the trial court’s order on his pretrial application for writ
of habeas corpus. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
The State charged Hernandez with two misdemeanor counts of assault causing bodily
injury, and the trial court set his cash bond at $2,000 for each count. Hernandez filed a motion to
reduce the amount of the bond, which the trial court denied. Hernandez then filed an application
for writ of habeas corpus, which again sought a reduction of his cash bond. On July 22, 2020, the
trial court granted Hernandez’s application and lowered his cash bond to $50 for each count. The
trial court also sua sponte imposed additional non-monetary conditions on Hernandez’s release,
including an order directing Hernandez to remain on house arrest. Hernandez did not object to the
04-20-00395-CR & 04-20-00397-CR
additional conditions or request any further relief in the trial court. On July 23, 2020, Hernandez
filed this appeal.
ANALYSIS
“The right to appeal in a criminal case is a substantive right solely within the province of
the Legislature.” Ahmad v. State, 158 S.W.3d 525, 526 (Tex. App—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d).
While a criminal defendant generally may appeal only from a final judgment, “[t]he denial of relief
on a pretrial writ of habeas corpus may be appealed immediately[.]” Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d
797, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Here, however, the trial court granted the relief Hernandez
sought in his habeas application—a reduction in the amount of his cash bond. Hernandez
nevertheless appeals that order, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by conditioning his
release on an order that he remain on house arrest. The State argues we lack jurisdiction over
Hernandez’s appeal because he did not seek habeas relief from the house arrest order in the trial
court.
We agree with the State. “[W]hether we can entertain an interlocutory appeal from the
denial of a bail-reduction request depends on how the defendant presented that request to the trial
court.” Sanderson v. State, Nos. 02-20-00006-CR, 02-20-00007-CR, 02-20-00009-CR, 2020 WL
827590, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 20, 2020, no pet.) (not designated for publication).
Because Hernandez never contested the house arrest provision in the trial court, his appellate
arguments cannot be construed as challenging the denial of a habeas application. See Ex parte
Miears, Nos. 04-09-00800-CR, 04-09-00801-CR, 04-09-00802-CR, 2010 WL 727525, at *1–2
(Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 3, 2010, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Hernandez’s
appeal is effectively an interlocutory challenge to a bail condition he considers excessive. We lack
jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail conditions if the defendant did
not first raise those complaints in a habeas corpus application in the trial court. Ragston v. State,
-2-
04-20-00395-CR & 04-20-00397-CR
424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Sanchez v. State, 340 S.W.3d 848, 852 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 2011, no pet.). As a result, we must dismiss Hernandez’s appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52.
CONCLUSION
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Beth Watkins, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-