Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00044-CR Andrea LARRAIN, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 1, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 373475 The Honorable John D. Fleming, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 10. 2013 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant Andrea Larrain is charged with possession of marijuana (under 2 ounces in a drug-free zone). On January 10, 2013, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress signed on October 5, 2012. It appears, however, from the record before us that the case has not yet proceeded to trial and judgment. As a general rule, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant only after a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown v. 04-13-00044-CR

State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). An intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders absent express authority. Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589. An order denying a motion to suppress is not an interlocutory order that an intermediate appellate court has express authority to consider. See Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589 (noting types of appealable interlocutory orders); Brandon v. State, No. 05–10–01040–CR, 2010 WL 3529528, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 13, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Therefore, on January 29, 2013, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has not responded. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-