Andre Duane Boyd v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00006-CR
ANDRE DUANE BOYD,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019-1888-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Andre Duane Boyd attempts to appeal the denial of his motion to
suppress. From the record before us, a final judgment has not been announced or
signed in the trial court, and the matter remains pending there.
A ruling denying a motion to suppress evidence constitutes an interlocutory
order. Lackey v. State, 364 S.W.3d 837, 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We do not have
jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly
granted by law. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also
Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“The standard for
determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the
appeal is authorized by law.”). There is no statutory authorization to appeal the denial
of a motion to suppress. McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
1996, no pet.).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
MATT JOHNSON
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed February 9, 2022
Do not publish
[CR25]
Boyd v. State Page 2