Court Opinion

ID: 2922937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 03:25:04.499496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:58.343166
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-06-406-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_________________________________________________________________ 
_

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                    Appellant,

v.

FEDERICO GARCIA,                                                           Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________  _____

On appeal from the 214th District Court 
of Nueces County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellant, the State of Texas, by and through the District Attorney in and for
Nueces County, Texas, attempts to appeal the trial court's order granting Federico
Garcia's motion for mistrial.  The State has also attacked this same order by writ of
mandamus in Cause No. 13-06-593-CR.
         The State contends that this Court has jurisdiction over the State's appeal under
article 44.01(a)(3) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure because case law provides
that when an order granting a mistrial is "functionally indistinguishable" from, or the
"functional equivalent" of an order granting a new trial, the State may appeal pursuant
to article 44.01(a)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 44.01(a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2006); State v. Doyle, 140 S.W.3d 890, 892
(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2004, pet. ref'd).
         We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to reach the merits of the State's
appeal because the order appealed from is a pre-verdict order granting a mistrial, rather
than a post-verdict order granting a new trial.  The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
provides no authority for the State to appeal an order granting a mistrial under these
circumstances.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(3); State v. Garza, 774
S.W.2d 724, 726 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref'd).  Accordingly, the Court
lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.  
         The appeal is hereby DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.  Any and all pending
motions are likewise dismissed.  
                                                                                 PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 
filed this 26th day of October, 2006.