Court Opinion

ID: 2926000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 22:21:03.276251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:01.338848
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-09-00545-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________

ERIC PAUL JARAMILLO,                                                           Appellant,

                                             v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________

           On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
                    of Nueces County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
                      Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Appellant, Eric Paul Jaramillo, attempted to appeal an order issued by the trial court

denying his pre-trial motion to suppress breath test results, field sobriety test and

videotape. On October 27, 2009, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared

that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order, and
requested correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed.

Appellant has failed to respond to the Court’s directive.

       The clerk’s record in this case does not contain a written order denying the

appellant’s motion to suppress breath test results, field sobriety test and videotape. Had

an order been in existence, such order would not constitute a final judgment, nor an

interlocutory order made appealable by statute. A defendant’s appeal from the denial of

a motion to suppress is not an exception to the general rule that interlocutory orders are

not appealable. See TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC . ANN . art 44.02 (Vernon 1979).

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the

opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the

appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX . R. APP. P.

42.3(a), (c).

                                                              PER CURIAM

Do not publish. TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 21st
day of December, 2009.

                                             2