Moses Gonzalez v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-20-00119-CR ___________________________ MOSES GONZALEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1630377D Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Moses Gonzalez attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order granting the State’s pretrial “Motion to Hold Defendant Without Bond.” Via letter, we notified Gonzalez of our concern that we lack jurisdiction to consider the trial court’s order because it is not appealable. See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court also informed Gonzalez that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal may be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Gonzalez did not file a response. We do not have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals from pretrial orders regarding the denial of bond sought by motion. Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52. But cf. Ex parte Peyton, No. 02-16-00029-CR, 2016 WL 2586698, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 5, 2016) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining that court of appeals does have jurisdiction over appeal from denial of pretrial habeas corpus application seeking bail reduction), pet. dism’d, No. PD-0677-16, 2017 WL 1089960 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2017) (per curiam) (not designated for publication). Because Gonzalez is attempting to appeal the trial court’s pretrial order denying him bond on the State’s motion, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52. Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: October 1, 2020 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.