Bilal Muhammad v. The State of Texas Appeal from 168th District Court of El Paso County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § BILAL MUHAMMAD, No. 08-21-00134-CR § Appellant, Appeal from the § v. § THE STATE OF TEXAS, § Appellee. 168th District Court of El Paso County, Texas § (20160D01015) MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Bilal Muhammad, pro se, is attempting to appeal the trial court’s order denying his motion to modify bond. This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine if it should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Because there is no appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. On May 6, 2021, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to modify his bond. The trial court, on June 16, 2021, set a cash or surety bond of $500,000 for the murder indictment pending against Appellant. On September 3, 2021, the Court’s clerk sent Appellant, Bilal Muhammad, pro se, notice that it appeared there is no appealable order at issue in this case. Further, the notice included our intent to dismiss for want of jurisdiction in ten days absent showing a basis to continue the appeal. Appellant did not file a responsive answer to our request. The Legislature has not vested appellate courts with jurisdiction to consider direct appeals from interlocutory pretrial bail rulings. Chestang v. State, Nos. 12-16-00305-CR & 12-16-00306CR, 2017 WL 104637, at *1 (Tex.App.—Tyler Jan. 11, 2017, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated for publication)(per curiam); see also McCarver v. State, 257 S.W.3d 512, 515 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 2008, no pet.). As the court of criminal appeals has explained, “[t]here is no constitutional or statutory authority granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail.” Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s pretrial bail ruling in this case. See id.; Thomas v. State, No. 05-20-00722-CR, 2020 WL 5757340, at *1 (Tex.App.—Dallas Sept. 28, 2020, no pet. h.)(mem. op., not designated for publication); Olageshin v. State, No. 04-20-00057-CR, 2020 WL 1159065, at *1 (Tex.App.—San Antonio Mar. 11, 2020, no pet.)(mem. op., not designated for publication)(per curiam); Chestang, 2017 WL 104637, at *1; Bridle v. State, 16 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). Appellant’s pending motion for en banc consideration of his extension request is denied as moot. We dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. October 27, 2021 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ. (Do Not Publish) 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
