Cynthia Lorena Gonzalez v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 10, 2015
Docket13-15-00553-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Cynthia Lorena Gonzalez v. State (Cynthia Lorena Gonzalez 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
Cynthia Lorena Gonzalez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

NUMBER 13-15-00553-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

CYNTHIA LORENA GONZALEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Cynthia Lorena Gonzalez, filed a notice of appeal on September 24,

2015. Appellant sought to appeal an order entered on September 23, 2015, denying her

motion to suppress. Our review of the documents before the Court shows that

appellant’s case is still pending in the trial court. On November 23, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared

that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order, and

requested correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed.

Appellant has not responded to the Court’s notice.

Generally, a state appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a

criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v.

State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d

160, 161 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). An adverse ruling on a pretrial motion

such as a motion to suppress is not a final appealable judgment. Apolinar v. State, 820

S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appellant may challenge the denial of a

motion to suppress as part of the appeal from the conviction.

The Court is of the opinion that we do not have jurisdiction over an appeal from the

denial of a pretrial motion to suppress. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for want

of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 10th day of December, 2015.

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

Related

Workman v. State
343 S.W.2d 446 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Apolinar v. State
820 S.W.2d 792 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
McKown v. State
915 S.W.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cynthia Lorena Gonzalez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cynthia-lorena-gonzalez-v-state-texapp-2015.