NO. 12-06-00189-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
EDWARADO YOUNG, § APPEAL FROM THE 145TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant Edwardo Young appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence located and seized as a result of statements he made to the police, contending the statements were involuntary. The trial court denied the motion on April 27, 2006 and denied Appellant’s motion for rehearing on May 17, 2006. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 12, 2006.
As a general rule, we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only where there has been a judgment of conviction. See Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961). A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction is expressly granted by law. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). No jurisdiction has been granted by law permitting courts of appeals to immediately review an order denying a motion to suppress. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).
On June 12, 2006, we notified Appellant that the information received in this appeal does not include a final judgment or appealable order. We further informed Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before June 22, 2006 to show the jurisdiction of this Court. On June 16, 2006, we received a letter from Appellant’s counsel, urging that this appeal should not be dismissed because reversal of the trial court’s order would be dispositive of the case. However, counsel did not address this Court’s jurisdiction.
An order denying a defendant’s motion to suppress is not appealable where there has been no judgment of conviction. McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Opinion delivered June 21, 2006.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)