From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gardner v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Feb 6, 2014
No. 10-14-00009-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 6, 2014)

Opinion

No. 10-14-00009-CR

02-06-2014

MILTON GARDNER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13074-A


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Milton Gardner filed a pro se notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside indictment for failure to afford constitutional right to speedy trial.

The standard for determining appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law. Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). "The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law." Ahmad v. State, 158 S.W.3d 525, 526 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref'd) (quoting Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

The Clerk of the Court notified Appellant that this case was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction and that the Court might dismiss his appeal unless he showed grounds for continuing it. Appellant responded to the Clerk's letter, but his response does not show that we have jurisdiction. No law authorizes this interlocutory appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The State's motion to dismiss is dismissed as moot. Gardner v. State

REX D. DAVIS

Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins
Dismissed
Do not publish
[CR25]


Summaries of

Gardner v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Feb 6, 2014
No. 10-14-00009-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 6, 2014)
Case details for

Gardner v. State

Case Details

Full title:MILTON GARDNER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Feb 6, 2014

Citations

No. 10-14-00009-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 6, 2014)