Radhakrishna Yerramneni v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________

No. 02-26-00063-CR
___________________________

RADHAKRISHNA YERRAMNENI, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1905346

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Radhakrishna Yerramneni attempts to appeal from the trial court’s

order denying his “Motion for Mandatory Release Under [Article] 17.151.”1 The right

to appeal in criminal cases is conferred by the legislature, and a party may appeal only

from judgments of conviction or orders authorized as appealable. See Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02; Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

“There is no constitutional or statutory authority granting the courts of appeals

jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals regarding excessive bail or the denial of bail.”

Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52. “The proper method for challenging the denial or

excessiveness of bail, whether prior to trial or after conviction, is by habeas corpus.”

Ex parte Gray, 564 S.W.2d 713, 714 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); White v. State,

No. 02-17-00211-CR, 2017 WL 3633301, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 24,

2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

We notified Yerramneni of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over his

appeal and warned that we could dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless,

within ten days, he or any other party showed grounds for continuing it.2 See Tex. R.

App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3. After more than ten days had passed, Yerramneni untimely

1
Yerramneni filed an “Emergency Motion for Immediate and Mandatory
Pretrial Release Under 17.151 Petition for Discretionary Review.”

The State timely responded and argued that we lack jurisdiction over the
2

appeal because the denial of Yerramneni’s pretrial bail motion is not an appealable
order.

2
responded. In his response, Yerramneni requested that we construe his motion to

reduce bail as a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus. The denial of relief

from a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus is immediately appealable, but the

denial of a pretrial motion that is not cognizable as a writ application may be appealed

only after conviction and sentencing. Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d 797, 801 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005).

We decline Yerramneni’s suggestion that we consider his motion the equivalent

of an application for writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Ragston, 402 S.W.3d 472, 479

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013 , aff’d, 424 S.W.3d 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

(declining to consider motion for bond reduction as a denial of an application for a

writ of habeas corpus). Yerramneni’s motion makes no reference whatsoever of

requested habeas relief, and it does not appear that the parties or the trial judge

treated it as such.3 We conclude that Yerramneni’s motion to reduce bail did not

invoke habeas relief, and thus we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.4 Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Ragston,

424 S.W.3d at 50–52.

3
The trial court’s order recites, “After hearing argument regarding the
Defendant’s ‘Motion for Mandatory Release Under [Article] 17.151,’ the Court denies
the Defendant’s motion.” [emphasis in original] The order reflects that the trial court
viewed the filing as a pretrial motion—not an application for writ of habeas corpus.
4
We dismiss any pending motions as moot. See Ward v. State, No. 02-21-00005-
CR, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 25, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication).

3
/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker
Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: April 30, 2026

4