Robert Allen Neely v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 22, 2015
• Docket: 04-15-00645-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

The State of

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00645-CR

Robert Allen NEELY, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR7454 Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

ORDER On July 29, 2015, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress. Thereafter, he filed a pro se document with the district clerk, which the district clerk interpreted as a notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. 1 The district clerk then forwarded the clerk’s record, which included the “notice of appeal,” to this court. However, there has been no judgment rendered in this case, and a defendant may not appeal an interlocutory order denying a motion to suppress. See Dahlem v. State, 322 S.W.3d 685, 690 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a written response in this court on or before November 11, 2015 showing cause why this court should not dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court, the district clerk, the court reporter, and all counsel.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

1 The document filed by the pro se defendant is actually a request for a Jackson v. Denno hearing to challenge the voluntariness of his confession. Admittedly, at the top of the document, the pro se included the handwritten words, “Apeal [sic] To,” but the substance of the document, which controls, makes it clear this is not a notice of appeal from either a final judgment or a ruling on the motion to suppress. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 22nd day of October, 2015.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court