IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-22-00006-CR ANDRE DUANE BOYD, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019-1888-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Andre Duane Boyd attempts to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. From the record before us, a final judgment has not been announced or signed in the trial court, and the matter remains pending there.

A ruling denying a motion to suppress evidence constitutes an interlocutory order. Lackey v. State, 364 S.W.3d 837, 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.”). There is no statutory authorization to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress. McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

MATT JOHNSON Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed February 9, 2022 Do not publish [CR25]

Boyd v. State Page 2