Michael Bohannan v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-11-00105-CR
MICHAEL BOHANNAN APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
OPINION
------------
Appellant Michael Bohannan seeks to appeal the trial court’s dismissal of
charges filed against him. On March 30, 2011, we notified Appellant and his
counsel that it appears we lack jurisdiction over this matter because an order
dismissing charges is not an appealable order, and we advised that this appeal
could be dismissed unless he, or any party desiring to continue the appeal, filed
a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before April 11,
2011. On April 5, 2011, we granted Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and
informed Appellant of his right to proceed pro se. Appellant timely filed a pro se
response to our March 30, 2011 letter. We have considered Appellant’s
response. It does not cite any authority granting us jurisdiction over this appeal.
The rules of appellate procedure provide that a criminal defendant has the
right to appeal a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P.
25.2(a)(2). Although the State is expressly permitted by statute to appeal an
order dismissing an indictment, this right of appeal has not been extended to the
defendant by statute or rule. Consequently, an order dismissing a charging
instrument is not an appealable order for purposes of rule 25.2(a)(2) if a
defendant brings the appeal. See Petty v. State, 800 S.W.2d 582, 583–84 (Tex.
App.––Tyler 1990, no pet.) (applying federal law holding that a dismissal of an
indictment is not an appealable order and review of a dismissal order must await
the outcome of a trial). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Skinner v. State, 305 S.W.3d 593, 594
(Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.
PUBLISH
DELIVERED: May 26, 2011
2