PER CURIAM

The State appeals from an order of the 51st Judicial District court granting appellee's motion to quash the enhancement paragraphs of the indictment in this cause. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 1996). We will dismiss the appeal.

When the State appeals from an order quashing an indictment, the notice of appeal must be signed by the elected district attorney having primary responsibility for prosecuting cases in the court hearing the case, or the record must otherwise reflect that the elected district attorney personally authorized the appeal. State v. Muller, 829 S.W.2d 805, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); State v. Pittman, 829 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no pet.); Art. 44.01(i). The notice of appeal in this cause was signed by the 119th Judicial District Attorney. It is the 51st Judicial District Attorney, however, who has the primary responsibility for prosecuting cases in the 51st Judicial District Court. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 43.130(a) (West 1988). While the 51st Judicial District Attorney may request the 119th Judicial District Attorney to assist in the trial of criminal cases in Tom Green County, the 51st Judicial District Attorney retains absolute control and management of those cases. Id., art. 43.130(b). We hold that the 119th Judicial District Attorney, when assisting the 51st Judicial District Attorney pursuant to article 43.130(b), is not authorized to make an appeal from an order of the 51st Judicial District Court.

Because the record does not reflect that the 51st Judicial District Attorney authorized this appeal, it is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Jones and B. A. Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 17, 1996

Do Not Publish