Thomas Garbett v. State
This text of Thomas Garbett v. State (Thomas Garbett v. State) 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
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-19-00071-CR __________________
THOMAS GARBETT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18-30163 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court denied appellant Thomas Garbett’s pretrial plea of former
jeopardy and collateral estoppel. Garbett filed an accelerated appeal with this Court.
We questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. The State filed a response, but
Garbett did not. In its response, the State asserts that in the underlying case, the State
filed an eight-count indictment against Garbett, and after a jury trial, Garbett was
found not guilty of three counts, and the remaining five counts resulted in a mistrial. 1 From the limited record currently before us, it appears that the charges of
which Garbett complains have not yet been litigated. We lack jurisdiction to review
interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.
Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Although a trial
court may construe a motion asserting double jeopardy as an application for habeas
corpus, intermediate Courts of Appeals may not do so. Ex parte Cantu, 913 S.W.2d
701, 704 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, pet. ref’d). Nothing in the limited record
before us suggests that the trial court treated Garbett’s motion as an application for
writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that the order from which Garbett appeals is
interlocutory, and we therefore lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Apolinar, 820
S.W.2d at 792; Ex parte Cantu, 913 S.W.2d at 704. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
_________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice
Submitted on April 16, 2019 Opinion Delivered April 17, 2019 Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Thomas Garbett v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-garbett-v-state-texapp-2019.