NUMBER 13-15-00475-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
WALKER DONRELL WILKERSON, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 377th District Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Walker Donrell Wilkerson, attempts to appeal the trial court’s order
denying motion to decrease bail signed on September 23, 2015. On October 2, 2015,
the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the order from which the
appeal was taken was not an appealable order, and requested correction of this defect
within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Counsel responded stating that Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.1 provides for appeals in bail cases and the order is
appealable.
Generally, a state appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a
criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. See Gutierrez
v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d
842, 844 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). There are a few limited exceptions to this
general rule, see Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.).
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that appellate courts lack jurisdiction
to review an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for pretrial bail reduction.
See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 31 provides procedures for appeals in habeas corpus and bail
proceedings and has been used by appellate courts in the past to find jurisdiction over
interlocutory orders for the denial of a motion to reduce bail. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31. In
Ragston, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals made it clear that Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 31 does not grant a right of interlocutory appeal because “[a] rule of appellate
procedure cannot, by itself, grant the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory
appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail, because the Court’s rules cannot
enlarge the rights of litigants beyond those provided in the constitutions or a statute.”
Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52.
The Court is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this Court
lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein.
2
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
5th day of November, 2015.
3