State v. Adam Gomez
This text of State v. Adam Gomez (State v. Adam Gomez) 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.
Opinion
PER CURIAM
The State seeks to appeal an order granting appellee Adam Gomez's motion to suppress evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (West Supp. 2000). The clerk's record reflects that the motion to suppress was granted in open court on September 18, 2000. The written order was signed on October 2, 2000. The State's notice of appeal was filed on October 20, 2000.
"The prosecuting attorney may not make an appeal under Subsection (a) or (b) of this article later than the 15th day after the date on which the order, ruling, or sentence to be appealed is entered by the court." Id. art. 44.01(d). "[T]he term 'entered by the court' [in article 44.01(d)] encompasses the signing of an order by the trial judge." State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398, 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The fifteenth day after the order in this cause was signed by the trial court was October 17, 2000. The State's substantive right to appeal expired after that date. State v. Demaret, 764 S.W.2d 857, 858 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no pet.); see also State v. Muller, 829 S.W.2d 805, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
The State did not perfect appeal before its right to appeal expired. Under the circumstances, we must dismiss the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The appeal is dismissed.
Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Yeakel
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed:
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Adam Gomez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-adam-gomez-texapp-2000.