Opinion
No. 04-03-00089-CR.
Delivered and Filed April 16, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2002-CR-7588.
Before ALMA L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, CATHERINE STONE and PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Edward Eugene Hastings, filed an appeal from the trial court's order overruling his motion to suppress. The record in this appeal does not contain a final judgment of conviction. Generally, we only have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a judgment of conviction. Ex parte Culver, 932 S.W.2d 207, 210 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996, pet. ref'd); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by law. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). A defendant's appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress is not an exception to the general rule that interlocutory orders are not appealable. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (Vernon 1979). On this basis, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On April 4, 2003, appellant's counsel filed a response, entitled "Information to the Court," in which he acknowledges that appellant has not been convicted and sentenced. Appellant's counsel requests that the court dismiss the appeal. In summary, appellant is appealing a pre-trial motion to suppress. A final judgment convicting and sentencing appellant has not been entered. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and we dismiss the appeal for that reason. To the extent appellant's "Information to the Court" is a motion to dismiss, the motion is rendered moot by this court's opinion and order.