Jimmy Lee Peavy Junior v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 21, 2021
• Docket: 14-20-00864-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 21, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00864-CR

JIMMY LEE PEAVY, JR., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 12th District Court Grimes County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18612

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jimmy Lee Peavy, Jr., who has not been convicted or finally sentenced, filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Because this court lacks jurisdiction, we order the appeal dismissed.

In Texas, appeals in a criminal case are permitted only when they are specifically authorized by the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); see State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“[A] defendant’s right of appeal is a statutorily created right.”). The standard for determining whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a case “is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (internal quotation omitted).

Accordingly, a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). No such grant exists for an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence.1 See Dahlem v. State, 322 S.W.3d 685, 690-91 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d) (explaining that no statute allows defendants to appeal interlocutory orders denying motions to suppress); see also, e.g., Ford v. State, No. 03-19-00518-CR, 2019 WL 4561395, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 20, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing defendant’s interlocutory appeal from denial of pretrial motion to suppress); Davis v. State, No. 14-14-00456-CR, 2014 WL 4088549, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 19, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same).

Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

/s/ Meagan Hassan Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

1 We note that the State is entitled to appeal an order granting a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5). However, no corresponding provision entitles a defendant to appeal the denial of such a motion. 2