Surafel Hailu Solomon v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 09-25-00474-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00472-CR NO. 09-25-00473-CR NO. 09-25-00474-CR __________________

SURAFEL HAILU SOLOMON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. F22-39310-0, F22-39311-0, and F22-39312-0 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Surafel Hailu Solomon, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal “for the motion

to dismiss for want of a speedy trial[]” in three criminal cases. For each appeal, the

Clerk of the Court issued a notice that it appears the matter being appealed is neither

a final judgment nor an appealable order. We asked the parties to file written

responses identifying the particular statute or rule authorizing these appeals at this

time, and we warned the parties that we would dismiss the appeals unless we

1 received a response that showed that we have jurisdiction over an appeal of the cases

at this time. Neither of the parties filed a response.

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

an order in Trial Cause Numbers F22-39310-0, F22-39311-0, or F22-39312-0 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).

APPEALS DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on January 20, 2026 Opinion Delivered January 21, 2026 Do Not Publish

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