Opinion
No. 04-15-00645-CR
11-25-2015
Robert Allen NEELY, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014CR7454
Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
On July 29, 2015, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress. Thereafter, he filed a pro se document with the district clerk, which the district clerk interpreted as a notice of appeal from the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress. The district clerk then forwarded the clerk's record, which included the "notice of appeal" to this court. However, after reviewing the record, we find there has been no judgment rendered in this case, and a defendant may not appeal an interlocutory order denying a motion to suppress. See Dahlem v. State, 322 S.W.3d 685, 690 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref'd). We therefore ordered appellant to file a written response in this court on or before November 11, 2015, showing cause why we should not dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant has not filed a response.
The document filed by the pro se defendant is actually a request for a Jackson v. Denno hearing to challenge the voluntariness of the defendant's confession. Admittedly, at the top of the document, the pro se included the handwritten words, "Apeal [sic] To," but the substance of the document, which controls, makes it clear this is not a notice of appeal from either a final judgment or a ruling on the motion to suppress. However, because the district clerk forwarded the document to us as a "notice of appeal," we must dispose of it as an appeal. --------
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM Do Not Publish