Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2000

State v. Adam Gomez

State v. Adam Gomez
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided November 16, 2000

State v. Adam Gomez

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN





NO. 03-00-00697-CR


The State of Texas, Appellant


v.


Adam Gomez, Appellee





FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 99-5564-1, HONORABLE KEVIN HENDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING


PER CURIAM

The State seeks to appeal an order granting appellee Adam Gomez's motion to suppress evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (West Supp. 2000). The clerk's record reflects that the motion to suppress was granted in open court on September 18, 2000. The written order was signed on October 2, 2000. The State's notice of appeal was filed on October 20, 2000.

"The prosecuting attorney may not make an appeal under Subsection (a) or (b) of this article later than the 15th day after the date on which the order, ruling, or sentence to be appealed is entered by the court." Id. art. 44.01(d). "[T]he term 'entered by the court' [in article 44.01(d)] encompasses the signing of an order by the trial judge." State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398, 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The fifteenth day after the order in this cause was signed by the trial court was October 17, 2000. The State's substantive right to appeal expired after that date. State v. Demaret, 764 S.W.2d 857, 858 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no pet.); see also State v. Muller, 829 S.W.2d 805, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

The State did not perfect appeal before its right to appeal expired. Under the circumstances, we must dismiss the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Yeakel

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed:

Do Not Publish

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.