Raymond Reginald Peoples v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00290-CR
__________________

RAYMOND REGINALD PEOPLES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F19-33629
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Raymond Reginald Peoples filed a pro se notice of appeal that indicated he

seeks to appeal an interlocutory order. On September 25, 2023, we notified the

parties that it appears the order being appealed is neither a final judgment nor an

appealable order. We asked the parties to file written responses identifying the

particular statute or rule authorizing an appeal at this time, and we warned the parties

that we would dismiss the appeal unless we received a response that showed that we

1
have jurisdiction over an appeal of this case at this time. Neither of the parties filed

a response.

Generally, an appeal may be taken by a defendant in a criminal case only after

a final conviction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) (establishing time for appeal by a

defendant after a sentence is imposed in open court or the trial court signs an

appealable order). In criminal cases, the courts of appeals have jurisdiction only of

those appeals authorized by a statute. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02;

Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 697 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (A defendant’s

general right to appeal under Article 44.02 has always been limited to appeal from a

final judgment.). A court of appeals lacks appellate jurisdiction to review an order

before final judgment unless an interlocutory appeal is expressly provided by statute.

See Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Neither of the

parties have shown that the trial court has imposed sentence in open court or signed

an order that may be appealed at this time. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). Accordingly,

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on October 31, 2023
Opinion Delivered November 1, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

2