Milton Gardner v. The State of TexasAppeal from 77th District Court of Limestone County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-14-00009-CR MILTON GARDNER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 77th District Court Limestone County, Texas Trial Court No. 13074-A MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Milton Gardner filed a pro se notice of appeal of the trial court s denial of his motion to set aside indictment for failure to afford constitutional right to speedy trial. The standard for determining appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case 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). The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ahmad v. State, 158 S.W.3d 525, 526 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref d) (quoting Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). The Clerk of the Court notified Appellant that this case was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction and that the Court might dismiss his appeal unless he showed grounds for continuing it. Appellant responded to the Clerk s letter, but his response does not show that we have jurisdiction. No law authorizes this interlocutory appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1 REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed February 6, 2014 Do not publish [CR25] 1 The State s motion to dismiss is dismissed as moot. Gardner v. State Page 2
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.
