Remon Rawlins v. the State of Texas

DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 22, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-01260-CR

REMON RAWLINS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 199-82625-2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith
Opinion by Justice Reichek
Before the Court is the October 30, 2024 amended notice of appeal filed by

appellant, Remon Rawlins. The notice of appeal states appellant is appealing the

May 31, 2024 order denying appellant’s motion to suppress.

Courts of appeals have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals only where

expressly granted by law. A defendant my appeal only a final judgment or other

appealable order. Henderson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 735, 735–36 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2005, no pet.); see TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). The pretrial denial of a motion to

suppress is not an appealable pretrial order. See McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160,
161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam); see also Johnson v. State,

No. 05-24-00752-CR, 2024 WL 3963855, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 28, 2024,

pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Faz v. State, No. 05-06-00540-

CR, 2006 WL 1727758, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 26, 2006, no pet.) (per

curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

We requested that the parties file letter briefs explaining why this Court had

jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant filed a brief.

Appellant asserts the courts of appeals “have jurisdiction to review significant

constitutional violations and procedural irregularities that occur prior to conviction

or plea.” Appellant cites three cases in support of this assertion: In re Prudential

Insurance Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004); State v. Robinson, 334 S.W.3d

776 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011);1 and State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2002). These cases do not establish this Court’s jurisdiction for the

interlocutory appeal of the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress.

In re Prudential Insurance Co. of Am. concerned an original proceeding for

writ of mandamus in a civil case. See In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 127. It did

not address, or purport to address, the jurisdiction of a court of appeals to hear an

appeal from an interlocutory order denying a defendant’s motion to suppress in a

1
Appellant cited this case as being issued by this Court. It was issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals
reviewing the decision of the Waco Court of Appeals.
–2–
criminal case. See id. That case is not applicable to the jurisdictional issue before

us.

State v. Robinson and State v. Medrano involved appeals by the State of Texas

from orders granting a defendant’s motion to suppress. See Robinson, 334 S.W.3d

at 777; State v. Medrano, 67 S.W.3d at 894. In those cases, the State had the

statutory right under article 44.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appeal the

interlocutory orders granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.01(a)(5) (“The state is entitled to appeal an order of a court

in a criminal case if the order: . . . (5) grants a motion to suppress evidence . . . .”).

No statutory or constitutional provision provides defendants a right to appeal

interlocutory orders denying their motion to suppress. Robinson and Medrano do

not support appellant’s assertion that this Court has jurisdiction to consider his

appeal.

Appellant’s other arguments and citations in his brief concern whether the

trial court and the State violated appellant’s statutory and constitutional rights; they

do not address whether this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal of the denial of

his motion to suppress.

–3–
We conclude appellant has failed to show this Court has jurisdiction over the

appeal. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

/Amanda L. Reichek/
AMANDA L. REICHEK
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

241260F.U05

–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

REMON RAWLINS, Appellant On Appeal from the 199th Judicial
District Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-24-01260-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 199-82625-
2023.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Opinion delivered by Justice
Reichek. Justices Molberg and Smith
participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for
want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered November 22, 2024

–5–