IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14-00009-CR
MILTON GARDNER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 77th District Court
Limestone County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13074-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Milton Gardner filed a pro se notice of appeal of the trial court’s denial
of his motion to set aside indictment for failure to afford constitutional right to speedy
trial.
The standard for determining appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case 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). “The courts of appeals do
not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been
expressly granted by law.” Ahmad v. State, 158 S.W.3d 525, 526 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
2004, pet. ref’d) (quoting Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).
The Clerk of the Court notified Appellant that this case was subject to dismissal
for want of jurisdiction and that the Court might dismiss his appeal unless he showed
grounds for continuing it. Appellant responded to the Clerk’s letter, but his response
does not show that we have jurisdiction. No law authorizes this interlocutory appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed February 6, 2014
Do not publish
[CR25]
1
The State’s motion to dismiss is dismissed as moot.
Gardner v. State Page 2