Torrance Meyon Robinson v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-23-00102-CR
TORRANCE MEYON ROBINSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 6th District Court
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 29951
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On August 11, 2022, Torrance Meyon Robinson was indicted for assault of a member of
his household by impeding circulation. On February 6, 2023, Robinson’s court-appointed
attorney filed a motion to reduce Robinson’s $110,000.00 bond. On February 24, 2023, the trial
court entered an order denying the bond reduction motion. On May 11, 2023, Robinson filed a
pro se notice appealing the trial court’s order.
In Texas, “[j]urisdiction must be expressly given to the courts of appeals in a statute.”
Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “[T]he standard for determining
jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized
by law.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008)). “This extends to interlocutory appeals as well . . . .” Id. “The courts of
appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been
expressly granted by law.” Id. (quoting Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991)). The Texas Legislature has not given appellate courts jurisdiction to hear direct
appeals from interlocutory pretrial bail rulings, such as the trial court’s February 24 order in this
case. See id.; McCarver v. State, 257 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.).
Consequently, we find no appealable order in the record before this Court.
Further, even if the trial court’s February 24 order were appealable, Robinson’s notice of
appeal would not have been timely.
By letter dated May 16, 2023, we notified Robinson’s court-appointed attorney of this
jurisdictional issue and afforded him an opportunity to respond. Although counsel for Robinson
2
did not file a response, Robinson did. Robinson’s response failed to demonstrate how we have
jurisdiction over this appeal.
Because there is no appealable order in the appellate record, we lack jurisdiction over this
appeal. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Scott E. Stevens
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: June 1, 2023
Date Decided: June 2, 2023
Do Not Publish
3