Opinion
No. 04-16-00467-CR
09-21-2016
Samuel Charles PERKINS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016CR2492
Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 21, 2016. The notice suggests appellant is attempting to appeal from the trial court's order denying his motion to quash the indictment. However, the record does not include an order either granting or denying the motion to quash. Moreover, even if the record contained such an order, it would not be appealable as such an order is neither a final appealable order in the absence of a judgment of conviction nor an appealable interlocutory order. See Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 752, 755-56 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. ref'd); Ahmad v. State, 158 S.W.3d 525, 527 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd). The appellate courts 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); Taylor, 268 S.W.3d 755-56.
Based on the foregoing, we ordered that appellant could file in this court, on or before September 1, 2016, a response showing why we should not dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Although appellant filed a letter in this court advising that he had requested a supplemental record from the district clerk, appellant has not filed a response showing this court has jurisdiction. We advised appellant in our order that if no satisfactory response was filed within the time provided, we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Because appellant has not filed a response, and it does not appear there is a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order in this matter, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM Do Not Publish