l)isniiss and Opinion Filed Mardi 1, 2013.
In The
Q!øitrt ni Atipit1s
Fiftt Iitrirt uf rxa itt Ia11a
No. 05-12-01738-CR
.IAY SANDON COOPER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2011-2-1391
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and Lewis
Opinion by Justice Lewis
Jay Sandon Cooper stands charged by infonnation with the offense of driving while
intoxicated. Appellant filed an affidavit of indigence on February 3, 2012, which was denied on
March 22, 2012. Thereafter, appellant represented himself in the trial court. On November 21,
2012, appellant filed “Defendant’s Objections; Motion for Ruling on Defendant’s Application
for Indigency; and In the Event that the Court Refuses to Rule, Defendant’s Objection to the
Refusal to Rule.” The trial judge denied this motion by order dated November 26, 2012. On
December 6, 2012, appellant filed his notice of appeal. Because there is not a final judgment, we
sent the parties a letter directing them to file letter briefs addressing our jurisdiction over the
appeal. Despite being given an extension of time to file his letter brief, appellant did not
respond. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
The right to appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily created right. See McKinnev i. State.
207 S.W,3d 366, 374 (Tex, Crim, App. 2004): Griffin v. State, 145 S.W3d 645, 646 (Tex. Crim,
App. 2004), See also FEX. CoDi CRIM. P. ANN. art. 34.02 (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 after conviction, Wright
v. State. 969 S,W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—DalIas 1998, no pet.) (identifying types of appealable
interlocutory orders). Intermediate appellate courts have no jurisdiction to review interlocutory
orders absent express authority. Ex porte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991); Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 598.
The interlocutory order denying appellant’s motion related to his affidavit of indigence
and the denial of court-appointed counsel is not a judgment of conviction nor does it fall within
the categories of appealable interlocutory orders. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this
appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
/ 4/ ;I
/,1
/
j iL
DAVID LEWIS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. App. P.47
121738F.U05
Qløurt uf Aieab
.FiftIi itrirt uf rxa at 1a11a
JUDGMENT
JAY SANDON COOPER, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law
No. 2. Grayson County, Texas
No. 05-124)1738-CR Trial Court Cause No. 2011-2-1391.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Moseley and O’Neill participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of
jurisdiction,
Judgment entered this ll day of March. 2013.
] ‘/L
OAVID LEWIS
JUSTICE