Nakita Monteago Wickware v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Court at Law of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-17-00154-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS NAKITA MONTEAGO WICKWARE, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Nakita Monteago Wickware filed an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress. On May 18, 2017, this Court notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely, there is no final judgment or appealable order. We further notified Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before June 19 to show the jurisdiction of the Court. In response, Appellant acknowledges that there is no appealable order and that the appeal should be dismissed. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeals from the denial of a motion to suppress, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Dahlem v. State, 322 S.W.3d 685, 690-91 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d); see also Foeller v. State, No. 0316-00616-CR, 2017 WL 393579 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 24, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). Opinion delivered June 14, 2017. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JUNE 14, 2017 NO. 12-17-00154-CR NAKITA MONTEAGO WICKWARE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 001-80366-17) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
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.
