Tommy Ray Young v. State










In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-05-00189-CR

______________________________



TOMMY RAY YOUNG, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



                                              


On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18,583-2004



                                                 




Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross



MEMORANDUM OPINION


          Tommy Ray Young has filed a notice of appeal from an order dismissing the prosecution against him. Generally, appellate courts may consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only after conviction. See Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 622, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961). There are narrow exceptions to the rule requiring conviction before a criminal defendant may appeal. Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).

          Because Young has not been convicted and his case does not fall into any of the exceptions allowing a criminal defendant to appeal without having been convicted, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589–90 (defendant may not appeal pretrial order revoking bond); Shumake v. State, 953 S.W.2d 842, 846–47 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.) (defendant may not appeal pretrial order raising bond); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161 (defendant may not appeal trial court's denial of motion to suppress); Petty v. State, 800 S.W.2d 582, 583 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1990, no pet.) (defendant may not appeal trial court's order of dismissal—not aggrieved by order).

          We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.




                                                                Donald R. Ross

                                                                Justice

 

Date Submitted:      January 4, 2006

Date Decided:         January 5, 2006


Do Not Publish

onally appeared at the revocation proceeding. Because the supplemented record contains a capias warrant, it is not necessary for us to address this alternative argument.