COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
|
DANIEL COCHRAN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. |
'
'
'
'
'
' |
No. 08-02-00395-CR Appeal from the 168th District Impact Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 20020D02699) |
OPINION DISMISSING APPEAL
ON COURT=S OWN MOTION
This attempted appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination of jurisdiction. Finding that the order appealed from is not a final judgment, nor an interlocutory order made appealable by statute, we dismiss the attempted appeal.
In this criminal case, Daniel Cochran filed a motion to suppress, the nature of which is not in the record before this Court. The trial court denied the motion on August 14, 2002. Cochran filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Appeal in the trial court, which was granted on September 13, 2002. He then filed a notice of appeal on the same day, stating he was appealing from the order denying his motion to suppress. That same day, this Court sent the parties our notice of intent to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction if within ten days no party could show grounds for continuing the appeal. The only response we have received to that notice is a request from appellant=s counsel for an extension of time to file a response. This extension was granted. The deadline has now lapsed and no substantive response has been received by this Court.
Denial of Suppression Motion not Appealable
Generally, we only have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a judgment of conviction. Ex parte Culver, 932 S.W.2d 207, 210 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1996, pet. ref=d); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by law. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Culver, 932 S.W.2d at 210; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. A defendant=s appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress is not an exception to the general rule that interlocutory orders are not appealable. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (Vernon 1979); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.[1] Further, although the process of civil appeals allows for a district court to issue a written order of interlocutory appeal in otherwise unauthorized civil actions, no such provision is provided for criminal interlocutory appeals. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 51.014(d) (Vernon Supp. 2002); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02.
Conclusion
We lack jurisdiction to address the issue in this attempted appeal at this time, as the denial of a defendant=s motion to suppress evidence is not immediately appealable. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
SUSAN LARSEN, Justice
October 31, 2002
Before Panel No. 1
Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
[1]The State is expressly granted the right to an interlocutory appeal of the granting of a suppression motion. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (Vernon Supp. 2002). No reciprocal right is granted to the defendant, however, where a motion to suppress is denied.