State v. Brijido A. Munoz

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 31, 2011
Docket04-11-00373-CR
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Brijido A. Munoz (State v. Brijido A. Munoz) 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
State v. Brijido A. Munoz, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00373-CR

The STATE of Texas, Appellant

v.

Brijido A. MUNOZ, Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009CR1044B Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 31, 2011

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

On May 31, 2011, the State filed a notice of appeal asserting that the trial court had

granted Munoz’s motion to suppress evidence. On the same day, this court granted the State’s

motion to stay the proceedings in the underlying case pending the disposition of the appeal. On

July 25, 2011, the State filed a motion to abate this appeal and remand this case to the trial court

for it to clarify its order on Munoz’s motion to suppress evidence. On August 11, 2011, the trial

court filed a response to the State’s motion to abate the appeal. The trial court stated that Munoz 04-11-00373-CR

had filed a motion to suppress two statements, and the court unambiguously stated that it denied

Munoz’s motion to suppress evidence.

“The plain language of Article 44.01(a)(5) clearly limits the State’s right to appeal to

orders granting motions to suppress evidence.” State v. Cowsert, 207 S.W.3d 347, 351 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006) (emphasis added); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.01(a) (West

2006). Because the trial court has unambiguously stated that the motions to suppress were

denied, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Dahlem v. State, 322 S.W.3d 685,

691 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d) (“An order . . . denying a motion to suppress is not

an ‘appealable order;’ it is an interlocutory ruling that is not appealable absent statutory

authority.”). Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 44.01 (West 2006); Cowsert, 207 S.W.3d at 351.

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-

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

Related

Dahlem v. State
322 S.W.3d 685 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
State v. Cowsert
207 S.W.3d 347 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Brijido A. Munoz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brijido-a-munoz-texapp-2011.