Opinion
04-22-00714-CR
12-21-2022
Vanessa Lopez PEREZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
DO NOT PUBLISH
From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021cr6203 Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice, Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
In Texas, appeals in criminal cases 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) (orig. proceeding); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 44.02 (“A defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed . . ..”). Generally, a criminal defendant may only appeal from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal absent express statutory authority. See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Here, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's Agreed Judgment of Incompetency under which appellant was committed to a facility pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 46B.073 for a period not to exceed 120 days "for further examination and treatment toward the specific objective of attaining competency to stand trial." We lack jurisdiction over such appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ART. 46B.011 (“Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to make an interlocutory appeal relating to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005.”); Grant v. State, No. 01-21-00340-CR, 2021 WL 4780066, at *1 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 14, 2021, pet. ref'd) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding "trial court's judgment finding appellant incompetent and temporarily committing him to a mental health facility for competency restoration is not a judgment of conviction" and "there is no statutory provision allowing an interlocutory appeal from such an order"); Queen v. State, 212 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006, no pet.) (concluding "the legislature did not intend to allow interlocutory appeals from orders of temporary commitment made after a determination of incompetence but before a subchapter E proceeding").
Because it appeared we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, on November 7, 2022, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing no later than November 22, 2022, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Our order cautioned appellant that if she failed to respond by November 22, 2022, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant has not responded. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.