Opinion
NO. 01-18-00367-CR
06-12-2018
JOHN WILLIAM PALMER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 263rd District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1584989
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Harris County District Attorney has filed a complaint charging appellant, John William Palmer, with the felony offense of retaliation. Appellant has filed pro se notices of appeal of the trial court's "Order Granting Motion for Psychiatric Examination: Competency."
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06(a)(1)(A), (c) (Vernon 2017).
We dismiss the appeal.
In the trial court proceeding, appellant's appointed counsel moved for a psychiatric evaluation of appellant, asserting that he had exhibited "signs of mental illness" and was "in Federal Court System [and] was found to have mental health issues." On April 5, 2018, the trial court signed an order granting the motion and ordering the Harris County Forensic Psychiatric Services to conduct a psychiatric examination of appellant to determine his "present competency under Article 46B, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure" and file an examination report with the trial court. On May 21, 2018, the trial court held a hearing, found appellant incompetent to stand trial, and ordered him committed to, and confined at, a mental health facility or residential care facility for a period not to exceed 120 days. After the trial court signed the April 5, 2018 order, appellant filed two pro se notices of appeal of "'the motion' for competency evaluation."
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.004(a) (Vernon 2018).
See id. art. 46B.005(a) (Vernon 2018); see also id. art. 46B.021, 46B.025 (Vernon 2018).
See id. art. 46B.051(b), 46B.071(a)(2)(B), 46B.073(b)(2) (Vernon 2018).
The right to appeal in criminal cases is conferred by statute, and a party may appeal only from a judgment of conviction or an interlocutory order as authorized by statute. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02 (Vernon 2018); see also Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order in a criminal case unless jurisdiction has been expressly granted by statute. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52. Here, appellant attempts to appeal the trial court's interlocutory order requiring an examination to determine if appellant is incompetent to stand trial. "Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to make an interlocutory appeal relating to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.011 (West Supp. 2017); see Queen v. State, 212 S.W.3d 619, 620-21 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.) (dismissing appeal of temporary commitment order issued after initial finding of incompetence under article 46B.055).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).