Wesley Troy Shields Appeal from 372nd District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-21-00022-CR No. 02-21-00023-CR No. 02-21-00024-CR No. 02-21-00025-CR No. 02-21-00026-CR No. 02-21-00027-CR ___________________________ WESLEY TROY SHIELDS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 372nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1581601D, 1581798D, 1591900R, 1600961D, 1647523D, 1652306R AND No. 02-21-00043-CR ___________________________ EX PARTE WESLEY TROY SHIELDS On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 5 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1567657 Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION Throughout 2019 and 2020, appellant Wesley Troy Shields filed a series of habeas applications seeking a bond reduction, along with a motion and a letter presenting similar requests. On March 1, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Shields’s requests and signed several certificates of proceedings indicating that the trial court altered the bond for many of Shields’s cases. Shields appealed the constitutionality of the trial court’s actions. He maintained that at the same time the trial court had lowered bond for some of his cases, the court had raised bond for others, such that the net reduction was only $10,000. On March 29, 2021, we notified Shields of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over his appeals because the trial court had not rendered any appealable written orders. We generally have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in a criminal case only when there has been a judgment of conviction. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam); see also Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In this case, the trial court has not signed a written order denying Shields’s pro se requests for habeas relief; this court has previously rejected urgings to treat certificates of proceedings as appealable orders. See Ex parte Darnell, Nos. 02-19-00466-CR, 02-20-00046-CR, 02-20-00047-CR, 2020 WL 1293692, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 19, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Langlais v. State, No. 02-17-00248-CR, 2017 WL 4296447, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 28, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 2 publication); see also State v. Wachtendorf, 475 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). In our letter, we stated that unless Shields or another party filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing the appeals, we could dismiss the appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We sent Shields a similar letter on May 4, 2021, again warning him of the possibility of dismissal unless a response was filed within ten days that justified retaining the appeals. As of today’s date, we have not received a response. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). /s/ Wade Birdwell Wade Birdwell Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: June 17, 2021 3
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.
