Court Opinion

ID: 9408935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 09:10:29.16652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.870492
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-23-00211-CR

BRYAN STALLWORTH,
                                                             Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                             Appellee

                            From the 12th District Court
                               Walker County, Texas
                               Trial Court No. 30582

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant Bryan Stallworth, acting pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s

denial of his request to retain copies of certain discovery. We will dismiss this appeal for

want of jurisdiction.

       Jurisdiction must be expressly given to the courts of appeals. Ragston v. State, 424

S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Ford, 553 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Waco

2018, orig. proceeding). The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the
appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law. Abbott v. State,

271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Ford, 553 S.W.3d at 731.

        Article 44.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: “A defendant in any

criminal action has the right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed.” TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. This statutory right of appeal has been interpreted as

allowing appeal only from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4

(Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The courts of appeals therefore do not have jurisdiction to review

interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been otherwise expressly granted by law.

Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

        We have not found any rule or any statutory or constitutional provision that

would authorize Stallworth’s appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory order denying

his request to retain copies of certain discovery. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is not

appealable, and we have no jurisdiction to entertain Stallworth’s appeal from the order.

See id. Thus, for the reasons stated, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

        Stallworth’s “Motion to Expedite Stay of Trial” is dismissed as moot.

                                                  MATT JOHNSON
                                                  Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed July 12, 2023
Do not publish
[CR25]

Stallworth v. State                                                                     Page 2