Dylan Shane Caad v. State ( 2014 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00630-CR
Dylan Shane Caad, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. CR2012-502, HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dylan Shane Caad, who has not been finally sentenced, filed a notice of appeal
attempting to challenge the district court’s August 20, 2013 order denying his pretrial motion to
suppress evidence.
We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal unless
that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014); Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). There is no such grant
for a defendant’s direct appeal of an interlocutory order denying a motion to suppress evidence. See
Dahlem v. State, 322 S.W.3d 685, 690-91 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d); see Jenkins
v. State, No. 03-13-00632-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 13288, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 25,
2013, no pet.).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App.
P. 43.2(f).
Jeff Rose, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: July 10, 2014
Do Not Publish
2