Opinion
No. 04-13-00044-CR
04-10-2013
Andrea LARRAIN, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the County Court at Law No. 1, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 373475
The Honorable John D. Fleming, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
Appellant Andrea Larrain is charged with possession of marijuana (under 2 ounces in a drug-free zone). On January 10, 2013, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress signed on October 5, 2012. It appears, however, from the record before us that the case has not yet proceeded to trial and judgment. As a general rule, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only after a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). An intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders absent express authority. Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589. An order denying a motion to suppress is not an interlocutory order that an intermediate appellate court has express authority to consider. See Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589 (noting types of appealable interlocutory orders); Brandon v. State, No. 05-10-01040-CR, 2010 WL 3529528, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 13, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Therefore, on January 29, 2013, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has not responded. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH