Kami Hanlon v. The State of Texas Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-17-00407-CR Kami Hanion Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 16-3070-K277 HONORABLE RICK KENNON, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Kami Hanion seeks to appeal the trial court’s denial of her request for release on personal bond. Courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). There is no constitutional or statutory authority granting appellate courts jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail.1 Ragston, 1 We recognize that courts of appeals do have jurisdiction to review denials of applications for pretrial writs of habeas corpus challenging bail determinations. Ex parte Smith , 486 S.W.3d 62, 64 n.4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.); see also Ex parte Gill, 413 S.W.3d 425, 427-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (concluding trial court abused discretion in denying application for writ of habeas corpus based on refusal to release defendant on personal custody or to reduce amount of bail under article 17.151 of code of criminal procedure). In this case, there is no indication that Hanion filed an application for writ of habeas corpus and that she is now attempting to appeal the trial court’s denial of that application. 424 S.W.3d at 52. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). __________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Bourland Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: June 30, 2017 Do Not Publish 2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.
