Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00702-CR & 04-14-00703-CR
Charlotte A. LEAL,
Appellant
v.
The
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2013CR5723 & 2103CR5724
Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 19, 2014
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On October 3, 2014, the trial court denied appellant Charlotte Leal’s “Motion to Suppress
Blood Evidence.” Five days later, on October 8, 2014, appellant filed a notice of appeal. We
conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
The right to appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily created right. See McKinney v. State,
207 S.W.3d 366, 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 44.02 art. (West
2006) (providing right of appeal for defendant); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2) (rules for appeal by
defendant). As a general rule, appellate courts may consider appeals by criminal defendants only
04-14-00702-CR & 04-14-00703-CR
after conviction. Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.).
Intermediate appellate courts have 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.
Orders denying pretrial motions to suppress are not appealable interlocutory orders. See
Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589 (identifying types of appealable interlocutory orders). Therefore, we
have no jurisdiction over this appeal, and order the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-