Steven Mitchell Gary v. The State of Texas Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-15-00628-CR Steven Mitchell GARY, Appellant v. The STATE The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR2945 Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 9, 2015 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On September 10, 2015, Steven Mitchell Gary filed a pro se notice of appeal. The notice of appeal stated that Gary was given a personal recognizance bond on February 24, 2014, which was “subsequently revoked” by the trial judge. The notice explained that Gary wishes to appeal the judge’s decision to revoke his bond. On October 8, 2015, the clerk’s record was filed. It reflects that there is no judgment in the underlying trial court cause and that this appeal is interlocutory. Courts of appeal have jurisdiction of an appeal by a criminal defendant only after a conviction or when an interlocutory appeal is specifically authorized by statute. See Ragston v. 04-15-00628-CR State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “[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.” Id.; see also Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589-90 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.) (pretrial order revoking bond was interlocutory order and not appealable). We ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a response indicating that this court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Do not publish -2-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.