Jawaid Parker v. The State of Texas Appeal from 182nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued October 11, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-16-00137-CR ——————————— JAWAID PARKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 182nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1435056 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jawaid Parker, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order that granted the State’s motion for continuance. We dismiss the appeal. The record reflects that the trial court granted the State’s motion for continuance on January 19, 2016. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion for continuance on February 11, 2016. The right to appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily created right. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006); Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Generally, a criminal defendant may only appeal from a final judgment. State v. Sellers, 790 S.W. 2d 316, 321 n. 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders in a criminal appeal absent express statutory authority. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Means v. State, 825 S.W.2d 260, 260–61 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.). The granting of a motion for continuance is not a separately appealable order. See Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d at 794 (courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders absent express statutory authority). On August 4, 2016, we notified appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a written response showing how this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant did not adequately respond. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot. 2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Huddle. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
