Opinion
05-24-01260-CR
11-22-2024
REMON RAWLINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199-82625-2023.
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
Before the Court is the October 30, 2024 amended notice of appeal filed by appellant, Remon Rawlins. The notice of appeal states appellant is appealing the May 31, 2024 order denying appellant's motion to suppress.
Courts of appeals have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals only where expressly granted by law. A defendant my appeal only a final judgment or other appealable order. Henderson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 735, 735-36 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); see Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). The pretrial denial of a motion to suppress is not an appealable pretrial order. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam); see also Johnson v. State, No. 05-24-00752-CR, 2024 WL 3963855, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Aug. 28, 2024, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Faz v. State, No. 05-06-00540-CR, 2006 WL 1727758, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 26, 2006, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
We requested that the parties file letter briefs explaining why this Court had jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant filed a brief.
Appellant asserts the courts of appeals "have jurisdiction to review significant constitutional violations and procedural irregularities that occur prior to conviction or plea." Appellant cites three cases in support of this assertion: In re Prudential Insurance Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004); State v. Robinson, 334 S.W.3d 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); and State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). These cases do not establish this Court's jurisdiction for the interlocutory appeal of the denial of appellant's motion to suppress.
Appellant cited this case as being issued by this Court. It was issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewing the decision of the Waco Court of Appeals.
In re Prudential Insurance Co. of Am. concerned an original proceeding for writ of mandamus in a civil case. See In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 127. It did not address, or purport to address, the jurisdiction of a court of appeals to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a defendant's motion to suppress in a criminal case. See id. That case is not applicable to the jurisdictional issue before us.
State v. Robinson and State v. Medrano involved appeals by the State of Texas from orders granting a defendant's motion to suppress. See Robinson, 334 S.W.3d at 777; State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d at 894. In those cases, the State had the statutory right under article 44.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appeal the interlocutory orders granting the defendant's motion to suppress. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) ("The state is entitled to appeal an order of a court in a criminal case if the order: . . . (5) grants a motion to suppress evidence . . . ."). No statutory or constitutional provision provides defendants a right to appeal interlocutory orders denying their motion to suppress. Robinson and Medrano do not support appellant's assertion that this Court has jurisdiction to consider his appeal.
Appellant's other arguments and citations in his brief concern whether the trial court and the State violated appellant's statutory and constitutional rights; they do not address whether this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal of the denial of his motion to suppress.
We conclude appellant has failed to show this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
Justices Molberg and Smith participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered.