NUMBER 13-05-268-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                  Appellant,

                                                             v.

DOUGLAS C. WRIGHT

A/K/A C. DOUGLAS WRIGHT,                                                        Appellee.

                       On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

                                       of Cameron County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                          Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yañez

C. Douglas Wright was acquitted of driving while intoxicated.  The State attempts to appeal the judgment of acquittal.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

By statute, the right of appeal afforded to the State is limited.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).  Specifically, article 44.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the State may appeal orders that:

(1)       dismiss an indictment, information or complaint or any portion of an indictment, information or complaint;

(2)       arrest or modify a judgment;

(3)       grant a new trial;

(4)       sustain a claim of former jeopardy; or

(5)       grant a motion to suppress evidence, a confession, or an admission, if jeopardy has not attached in the case and if the prosecuting attorney certifies to the trial court that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence, confession, or admission is of substantial importance in the case.

See id. art. 44.01(a).  The State may also appeal a sentence on the ground that it is illegal and may appeal a ruling on a question of law if the defendant is convicted and appeals the judgment.  See id. art. 44.01(b), (c).

On its face, the judgment in the instant case does not fall within one of the above‑listed categories from which the State is permitted to appeal.  The Clerk of the Court notified the State that, upon review of the clerk=s record, it appeared that the judgment from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable judgment.  The Clerk advised the State that if the defect was not cured within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court=s letter, the appeal would be dismissed.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.  In its response, the State does not argue that the instant case falls within one of the categories of appealable orders listed in article 44.01, but rather argues that the trial court lacked authority to enter the judgment of acquittal.   The State=s argument fails to bring this appeal within the purview of the limited rights to appeal recognized by statute.

A verdict of acquittal may not be reviewed.  State v. Savage, 933 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  This is so "regardless of how egregiously wrong the verdict may be."  Id.  (quoting State v. Moreno, 807 S.W.2d 327, 332 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)); Strong v. State, 87 S.W.3d 206, 213 (Tex. App.BDallas 2002, pet. ref=d).  Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ

Justice

Concurring memorandum opinion by

Justice Errlinda Castillo

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum opinion delivered and filed this

the 3rd day of January, 2006.