Summary
concluding that court lacked jurisdiction over defendant's interlocutory appeal from denial of his motion to suppress evidence
Summary of this case from Foeller v. StateOpinion
NO. 03-13-00630-CR
07-10-2014
Dylan Shane Caad, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. CR2012-502, HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dylan Shane Caad, who has not been finally sentenced, filed a notice of appeal attempting to challenge the district court's August 20, 2013 order denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence.
We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). There is no such grant for a defendant's direct appeal of an interlocutory order denying a motion to suppress evidence. See Dahlem v. State, 322 S.W.3d 685, 690-91 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref'd); see Jenkins v. State, No. 03-13-00632-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 13288, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 25, 2013, no pet.).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
__________
Jeff Rose, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Do Not Publish