Bohannan v. State

352 S.W.3d 47, 2011 WL 2119688
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 4, 2011
Docket02-11-00105-CR
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 352 S.W.3d 47 (Bohannan v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bohannan v. State, 352 S.W.3d 47, 2011 WL 2119688 (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

OPINION

LEE GABRIEL, Justice.

Appellant Michael Bohannan seeks to appeal the trial court’s dismissal of charges filed against him. On March 80, 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 *48 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 appeal-able 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 appeal-able 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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jose David Diaz v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2025
Damion Bryc Perez v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
Melvin Leon Owens v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
Michael Adam Kozitzki v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
Yat Ho Wong v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Joseph Demetrius Farris v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021
Ross Thomas Brantley III v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
Mark Rudolph Domres v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
Clinton Ryan Ward v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
Robert Lee Crider, Jr. v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
Phillip J. Emerson, Jr. v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016
Dewitt, Daniel Julian Londale v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013
Rogelio Herrera Guerrero v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
352 S.W.3d 47, 2011 WL 2119688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bohannan-v-state-texapp-2011.