Gary Holland v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 09-25-00517-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00516-CR NO. 09-25-00517-CR __________________

GARY HOLLAND, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 25-397809 and 25-397810 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gary Holland filed a Notice of Appeal (Interlocutory) for Trial Cause

Numbers 25-397809 and 25-397810. In each appeal, the Clerk of the Court notified

the parties by letter that it appears the order being appealed is neither a final

judgment nor an appealable order. Holland responded that the appeals arise from

unauthorized entry of a plea and that he is seeking relief from interlocutory orders

issued by the trial court without authority. Holland admits in his response that he is

1 appealing interlocutory orders or rulings. Holland cites to authority that simply does

not support his argument that he should be allowed to appeal the interlocutory ruling

or order.

Generally, an appeal may be taken by a defendant in a criminal case only after

a final conviction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) (establishing time for appeal by a

defendant after a sentence is imposed in open court or the trial court signs an

appealable order). In criminal cases, the courts of appeals have jurisdiction only of

those appeals authorized by a statute. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02;

Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 697 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (A defendant’s

general right to appeal under Article 44.02 has always been limited to appeal from a

final judgment.). A court of appeals lacks appellate jurisdiction to review an order

before final judgment unless an interlocutory appeal is expressly provided by statute.

See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Neither of the

parties has shown that the trial court has imposed a sentence in open court or signed

an order in Trial Cause Number 25-397809 or 25-397810 that may be appealed at

this time. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack

of jurisdiction. See id. 43.2(f).

2 APPEALS DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 10, 2026 Opinion Delivered February 11, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.