Andre Duane Boyd v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 9, 2022
• Docket: 10-22-00006-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed February 9, 2022 Do not publish [CR25]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