Thomas Robert Gilchrist v. State ( 2020 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00878-CR
Thomas Robert GILCHRIST,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017-04-13013-CR
Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 6, 2020
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
On December 19, 2019, appellant Thomas Robert Gilchrist filed a pro se notice of appeal
seeking to appeal an order denying his “Pretrial Motion to Dismiss Prosecution with Prejudice”
and “Motion to Dismiss Abuse – Prosecutorial Misconduct.” The clerk’s record contains a copy
of this order signed on December 16, 2019, but it does not include a judgment of conviction. When
the Uvalde County District Clerk filed the clerk’s record, it also informed us that there was no
judgment of conviction against appellant. The district clerk added that trial is set for July 7, 2020.
04-19-00878-CR
In general, we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only when
the trial court has signed a judgment of conviction. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991). We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that
jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by law. Id. Rulings on pretrial motions are
interlocutory and consequently, not subject to immediate appeal. Ex parte Smith, 178 S.W.3d 797,
801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We also have not found any constitutional or statutory authority that
would permit an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a pretrial motion for prosecutorial
misconduct.
Because there was no judgment of conviction, we ordered appellant to file a response
showing why we should not dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. In that order, we advised
appellant that if no satisfactory response was filed within the time provided, we would dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a timely response, agreeing this court does not
have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory
order in this matter, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish
-2-