Samuel Charles Perkins v. State

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-16-00467-CR
Samuel Charles PERKINS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016CR2492
Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 21, 2016
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 21, 2016. The notice suggests appellant is
attempting to appeal from the trial court’s order denying his motion to quash the indictment.
However, the record does not include an order either granting or denying the motion to quash.
Moreover, even if the record contained such an order, it would not be appealable as such an order
is neither a final appealable order in the absence of a judgment of conviction nor an appealable
interlocutory order. See Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 752, 755–56 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet.
ref’d); Ahmad v. State, 158 S.W.3d 525, 527 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d). The
04-16-00467-CR
appellate courts 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);
Taylor, 268 S.W.3d 755–56.
Based on the foregoing, we ordered that appellant could file in this court, on or before
September 1, 2016, a response showing why we should not dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction. Although appellant filed a letter in this court advising that he had requested a
supplemental record from the district clerk, appellant has not filed a response showing this court
has jurisdiction. We advised appellant in our order that if no satisfactory response was filed within
the time provided, we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Because appellant has not filed a response, and it does not appear there is a final judgment
or appealable interlocutory order in this matter, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish
-2-