Bryan Keith Gutierrez v. the State of Texas
Docket 04-26-00160-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 04-26-00160-CR
Appeal from interlocutory matters (bail amount and motion to quash indictments) in a criminal case from the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas.
Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed appellant Bryan Keith Gutierrez's filing for lack of jurisdiction. Gutierrez filed a "Motion for Bond Relief" that appeared to challenge bail and seek to quash multiple indictments. The appellate court treated the filing as a notice of appeal but found no final judgment of conviction in the record and noted that courts of appeals lack statutory authority to hear interlocutory appeals on excessive bail or motions to quash indictments. Because the appellant did not respond to an order to show cause, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues Decided
- Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory challenge to the amount of bail.
- Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an interlocutory denial of a motion to quash indictments.
Court's Reasoning
The court relied on Texas precedent holding that appellate jurisdiction must be expressly granted by statute, and there is no statutory or constitutional authority permitting courts of appeals to decide interlocutory appeals about bail or interlocutory denials to quash indictments. Because the record did not include a final judgment of conviction and the matters were interlocutory, the court lacked jurisdiction. The appellant's failure to respond to the court's show-cause order further supported dismissal.
Authorities Cited
- Ragston v. State424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
- Ex parte Alvear524 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, no pet.)
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2
Parties
- Appellant
- Bryan Keith Gutierrez
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Jennifer Dillingham
Key Dates
- Appellant filing (Motion for Bond Relief)
- 2026-03-02
- Opinion delivered and filed
- 2026-04-08
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Return to trial court to seek relief
File appropriate motions in the trial court to challenge bail or to move to quash the indictments, and request a ruling that creates an appealable order if possible.
- 2
Consult criminal defense counsel
Talk with an attorney about alternative remedies available in Texas for interlocutory issues, including possible writs or motions that are procedurally proper.
- 3
Respond to court deadlines
Ensure timely responses to any trial-court deadlines or orders and preserve the record so any future appeal rests on a final judgment or an authorized interlocutory appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court dismissed the appeal because it lacked jurisdiction to review the interlocutory issues raised — bail amount and motions to quash indictments — and there was no final judgment to appeal.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Appellant Bryan Keith Gutierrez is directly affected because his request for appellate relief was dismissed; the trial court proceedings and any pretrial rulings remain in place.
- What happens next in the case?
- Because the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, any challenges to bail or to the indictments must be pursued in the trial court or through a statutorily authorized procedure.
- Can this dismissal be appealed?
- Not in the same way — the dismissal rested on lack of appellate jurisdiction; the proper route is to seek relief in the trial court or, if a statute allows, file a writ or other authorized interlocutory procedure.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-26-00160-CR
Bryan Keith GUTIERREZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas
Trial Court No. 25-09-00102-CRK
Honorable Jennifer Dillingham, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Velia J. Meza, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2026
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
The clerk’s record reflects that on March 2, 2026, appellant filed a “Motion for Bond
Relief” in this court, appearing to challenge the amount set as bail and requesting that several
indictments against him be quashed. The record does not reflect a judgment of conviction. We
liberally construe appellant’s motion as a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2.
“Jurisdiction 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). “There is no constitutional or statutory authority
04-26-00160-CR
granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or
the denial of bail.” Id. And we have no jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order denying a
motion to quash an indictment. Ex parte Alvear, 524 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016,
no pet.).
We accordingly ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-