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.
