Full Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-26-00550-CR Reginald Bernard WILDER, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2025-CR-009573 Honorable Joel Perez, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 26, 2026 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On July 7, 2026, appellant filed a pro se “Notice of Appeal from Negotiated Plea.” The notice of appeal indicates that appellant wishes to challenge a sentence imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea on March 24, 2026. However, the record does not contain any judgment of conviction signed on March 24, 2026. Nor does the record indicate that appellant entered into a negotiated plea or that the trial court ever imposed any sentence pursuant to such a plea. 04-26-00550-CR The only March 24, 2026 order that appears in the appellate record is an interlocutory order granting the State’s motion to increase appellant’s bond. We “do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.” Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). “[T]his court has previously held that we do not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory pretrial order granting a motion to increase bail because such jurisdiction has not been expressly granted by statute.” Ex parte Carter, 621 S.W.3d 355, 357 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Herrera, No. 04- 18-00020-CR, 2018 WL 1733123, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 11, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)). The record also contains a March 30, 2026 Agreed Judgment of Competency to stand trial. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 46B.005. “Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to make an interlocutory appeal relating to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005.” Id. art. 46B.011; see also Martinez v. State, No. 04-23-01082-CR, 2024 WL 350601, at *1 (Tex. App.— San Antonio Jan. 31, 2024, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Zbikowski v. State, No. 04-23-00321-CR, 2023 WL 3984880, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 14, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Finally, a notice of appeal in a criminal matter generally must be filed “within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order[.]” TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant’s July 7, 2026 notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after both the March 24, 2026 order increasing his bond and the March 30, 2026 agreed judgment of competency. For these reasons, on July 16, 2026, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing by August 17, 2026 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In our order, we -2- 04-26-00550-CR cautioned appellant that if he failed to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). On August 13, 2026, appellant filed a pro se “Plaintiff Motion for Arrest Warrant (Citizen)” that did not address the jurisdictional issues noted in our July 16 order. He did not otherwise respond to our order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s “Plaintiff Motion for Arrest Warrant (Citizen)” is denied. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -3-