M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 04-17-2019

Case Style:

Tammie Mediati v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 03-19-00206-CR

Judge: Edward Smith

Court: TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Plaintiff's Attorney: Mr. R. Blake Ewing
The Honorable Stacey M. Soule

Defendant's Attorney: Mr. Justin Bradford Smith

Description:



Sooner Cannabis Consultants
Click Here For Expert Help

918-960-5038




Appellant Tammie Mediati, who has not yet been finally sentenced, filed a pro se
notice of appeal of the trial court’s order denying her pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Her
appointed appellate counsel subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. We will grant the motion because we do not have jurisdiction over this
interlocutory appeal.
In Texas, appeals in a criminal case are permitted only when they are specifically
authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011); see Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“[A] defendant’s right
of appeal is a statutorily created right.”). The standard for determining whether an appellate
court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a case “is not whether the appeal is precluded by
law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 902 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2012) (quoting Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App.
2

2008)); State ex rel. Lykos, 330 S.W.3d at 915. Thus, a court of appeals does not have
jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by
law. Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte
Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no pet.). No such grant exists for a
defendant’s direct appeal of an interlocutory order denying a pretrial motion to suppress.1
See Dahlem v. State, 322 S.W.3d 685, 690-91 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d)
(explaining that no statute or rule allows defendants to appeal interlocutory orders denying
motions to suppress); Jenkins v. State, No. 03-13-00632-CR, 2013 WL 5966169, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Austin Oct. 25, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding that
court lacked jurisdiction because denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence is not
immediately appealable).

Outcome: Accordingly, we grant Mediati’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want
of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.