Opinion
10-23-00211-CR
07-12-2023
BRYAN STALLWORTH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish
From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 30582
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and, Justice Smith
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MATT JOHNSON JUSTICE
Appellant Bryan Stallworth, acting pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial court's denial of his request to retain copies of certain discovery. We will dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction must be expressly given to the courts of appeals. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Ford, 553 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.-Waco 2018, orig. proceeding). The standard for determining jurisdiction 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); Ford, 553 S.W.3d at 731.
Article 44.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: "A defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. This statutory right of appeal has been interpreted as allowing appeal only from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The courts of appeals therefore do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been otherwise expressly granted by law. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
We have not found any rule or any statutory or constitutional provision that would authorize Stallworth's appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order denying his request to retain copies of certain discovery. Accordingly, the trial court's order is not appealable, and we have no jurisdiction to entertain Stallworth's appeal from the order. See id. Thus, for the reasons stated, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Stallworth's "Motion to Expedite Stay of Trial" is dismissed as moot.
Dismissed.