Torrance Meyon Robinson v. The State of Texas Appeal from 6th District Court of Lamar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-23-00102-CR TORRANCE MEYON ROBINSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 29951 Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 11, 2022, Torrance Meyon Robinson was indicted for assault of a member of his household by impeding circulation. On February 6, 2023, Robinson’s court-appointed attorney filed a motion to reduce Robinson’s $110,000.00 bond. On February 24, 2023, the trial court entered an order denying the bond reduction motion. On May 11, 2023, Robinson filed a pro se notice appealing the trial court’s order. In Texas, “[j]urisdiction must be expressly given to the courts of appeals in a statute.” Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “[T]he standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)). “This extends to interlocutory appeals as well . . . .” Id. “The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.” Id. (quoting Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). The Texas Legislature has not given appellate courts jurisdiction to hear direct appeals from interlocutory pretrial bail rulings, such as the trial court’s February 24 order in this case. See id.; McCarver v. State, 257 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.). Consequently, we find no appealable order in the record before this Court. Further, even if the trial court’s February 24 order were appealable, Robinson’s notice of appeal would not have been timely. By letter dated May 16, 2023, we notified Robinson’s court-appointed attorney of this jurisdictional issue and afforded him an opportunity to respond. Although counsel for Robinson 2 did not file a response, Robinson did. Robinson’s response failed to demonstrate how we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Because there is no appealable order in the appellate record, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: June 1, 2023 June 2, 2023 Do Not Publish 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.
