Opinion issued February 1 7 , 2022

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 2 1 - 005 58 - C R

——————————— JONTE LARUE GRANT , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 506th District Court

Waller County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 20 - 06 - 17345
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Jonte Larue Grant, who has not been convicted or finally sentenced, filed a pro se notice of appeal of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Because we lack appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss this interlocutory appeal.2

For an appeal in a criminal case to be permissible, the appeal must be specifically authorized by the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Appellate Procedure
. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . art. 44.02 (“A defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed
. . . .”); T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2) (“A defenda nt in a criminal case has the right of appeal under Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.02 and these rules.”) ; see also State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine , 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (“[I]n Texas, appeals by either the State or the defendant in a criminal case are permitted only when they are specifically authorized by statute.”). The standard for determining whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a case “is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the ap peal is authorized by law.” Blanton v. State , 369 S.W.3d 894, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Lykos , 330 S.W.3d at 915. The Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that a defendant’s general right to appeal under article 44.02 “has always been limited to appeal f rom a ‘final judgment.’” State v. Sellers , 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Ex parte Evans , 611 S.W.3d 86, 87 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2020, no pet.). Rule 25.2(a)(2) allows a defendant to appeal a “judgment of guilt or other appealable order.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2).3

We lack jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ; Evans , 611 S.W.3d at 87 . No such grant exists for an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a pretrial motion to suppress. 1 See Dahlem v. State , 322 S.W.3d 685, 690

– 91 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d) (noting that no statute or rule allows defendants to appeal interlocutory orders denying motions t o suppress and thus order denying motion to suppress is “not an ‘appealable order’” under Rule 25.2(a)(2) ); see also Peavy v. State , No. 14

- 20

- 00864

- CR, 2021 WL 6050051, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 21, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not design ated for publication) (dismissing defendant’s appeal from pretrial interlocutory order denying motion to suppress) ; Ford v. State , No. 03

- 19

- 00518

- CR, 2019 WL 4561395, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Sept. 20, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publicati on) (same)
. Instead, a defendant may challenge such a ruling by direct appeal after the trial court has signed a judgment. Trevino v. State , No. 07

- 17

- 00417

- CR, 2017 WL 5505410, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Nov. 15, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

1 The State is entitled to appeal an order granting a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . art. 44.01(a)(5). However, no corresponding provision allows a defendant to appeal the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence
. See P eavy v. State , No. 14

- 20

- 00864

- CR, 2021 WL 6050051, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 21, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).4

We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. P ER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Rivas

- Molloy, and Farris. Do Not Publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).