Vanessa Lopez Perez v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-22-00713-CR
Vanessa Lopez PEREZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016CR7260
Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 21, 2022
APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
In Texas, appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are specifically authorized
by statute. State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig.
proceeding); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02 (“A defendant in any criminal action has the
right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed . . ..”). Generally, a criminal defendant may
only appeal from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App.
1990). The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal
04-22-00713-CR
appeal absent express statutory authority. See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014).
Here, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s Agreed Judgment of
Incompetency under which appellant was committed to a facility pursuant to Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure 46B.073 for a period not to exceed 120 days “for further examination and
treatment toward the specific objective of attaining competency to stand trial.” We lack
jurisdiction over such appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 46B.011 (“Neither the state nor
the defendant is entitled to make an interlocutory appeal relating to a determination or ruling under
Article 46B.005.”); Grant v. State, No. 01-21-00340-CR, 2021 WL 4780066, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 14, 2021, pet. ref’d) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (concluding “trial court’s judgment finding appellant incompetent and temporarily
committing him to a mental health facility for competency restoration is not a judgment of
conviction” and “there is no statutory provision allowing an interlocutory appeal from such an
order”); Queen v. State, 212 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.) (concluding “the
legislature did not intend to allow interlocutory appeals from orders of temporary commitment
made after a determination of incompetence but before a subchapter E proceeding”).
Because it appeared we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, on November 7, 2022, we
ordered appellant to show cause in writing no later than November 22, 2022, why this appeal
should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Our order cautioned appellant that if she failed
to respond by November 22, 2022, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of
jurisdiction. Appellant has not responded. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish
-2-