McKown v. State, 2-95-509-CR

Citation915 S.W.2d 160
Decision Date18 January 1996
Docket NumberNo. 2-95-509-CR,2-95-509-CR
PartiesKimberly Denise McKOWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

Larry D. Richter, Wichita Falls, for appellant.

John Brasher, Dist. Atty., Wichita Falls, for appellee.

Before LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT and RICHARDS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Kimberly Denise McKown appeals the denial of her motion to suppress evidence at her trial for possession of a controlled substance. Because we find that this appeal does not concern an appealable order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Before trial, McKown filed a motion to suppress any evidence seized pursuant to her arrest because she claimed the arrest warrant was issued without probable cause. As a result, McKown also wanted to suppress any statements she made after the arrest. The trial court denied the motion on October 12, 1995. McKown filed a notice of appeal from this ruling on October 30.

McKown is obviously trying to appeal from a pretrial, non-final ruling by the trial court. Generally, we only have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a judgment of conviction. See Workman v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (App.1961). We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted to us by law. Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). There are narrow exceptions to this rule: (1) defendants on deferred adjudication can immediately appeal rulings on pretrial motions, 1 (2) defendants can appeal the denial of a motion to reduce bond, 2 and (3) a defendant can appeal from the denial of a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus alleging double jeopardy. 3 McKown's appeal does not fall into any of these exceptions and we have found no statute that would authorize us to address her interlocutory appeal. In fact, the only authority McKown cites us to is TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 44.01(a)(5) (Vernon Supp.1996). This statute refers only to the State's right to appeal. According to the Beaumont Court of Appeals, the subsection authorizing the State to appeal the grant of a motion to suppress evidence does not extend to a non-deferred adjudicated defendant. State v. Clouse, 839 S.W.2d 459, 463 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1992, no pet.).

Although there is no definitive Texas common or statutory law on the issue of a defendant's right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, federal law is established. The Fifth Circuit has held that such a denial is a non-final interlocutory order that is not appealable. United States v. Acosta, 669 F.2d 292, 293 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); see also United States v. Martin, 682 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1088, 103...

To continue reading

Request your trial
357 cases
  • State v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 16 Diciembre 1999
    ...Ex parte Tarver, 725 S.W.2d at 199-200. A motion to suppress evidence is a pretrial non-final ruling by the trial court. McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth 1996, no pet'n). It is merely a specialized objection to the admissibility of evidence. Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d......
  • Ex parte Culver, 08-95-00166-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 22 Agosto 1996
    ...we only have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a judgment of conviction. McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet. h.). We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been e......
  • Ex parte Shumake, 03-97-00014-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 25 Septiembre 1997
    ...in each case. Id. Generally, we have jurisdiction in criminal cases only where there has been a judgment of conviction. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (citing Workman v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961)). A court of appeals ......
  • Sanchez v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • 16 Marzo 2011
    ...no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). On the other hand, five of our sister courts have concluded that because there is no express s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT