Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 01-29-2017
Case Style:
Case Number: 03-16-00616-CR
Judge: Jeff Rose
Court: TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Stephen Foeller, who has not been finally sentenced, filed a notice of appeal of the
trial court’s order denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. However, 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, 1
322 S.W.3d 685, 690-91 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d) (noting that pretrial order on
motion to suppress is interlocutory ruling that is not appealable by defendant); see also Caad v. State,
No. 03-13-00630-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7414, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 10, 2014, no
The State is entitled to appeal an order granting a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, see1 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a)(5), but no corresponding provision entitles a defendant to appeal the denial of such a motion. See id. art. 44.02.
pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that court lacked jurisdiction over
defendant’s interlocutory appeal from denial of his motion to suppress evidence).
Outcome: The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: