Background
Preston Barrett appealed from a May 7, 2026 order entered by the 211th District Court in Denton County, Texas, dismissing two criminal cases (trial court numbers F25-779-211 and F25-1516-211) pursuant to the State’s motion to dismiss prosecution. The appellate court received the appeals in two cause numbers: 02-26-00187-CR and 02-26-00188-CR.
On May 28, 2026, the court of appeals notified Barrett by letter of its concern that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeals because the trial court’s dismissal order did not appear to be an appealable order under Texas law. The court gave Barrett until June 8, 2026 to file a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeals. Barrett did not respond to this notice.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed both appeals for want of jurisdiction. The court held that an appellate court’s jurisdiction in criminal cases is generally limited to appeals from judgments of conviction or orders made appealable by statute. An order dismissing a case on the State’s motion to dismiss prosecution does not fall within either category and is therefore not an appealable order.
The court cited binding precedent, including Love v. State and Ex parte Smith, for the proposition that dismissal orders on the State’s motion to dismiss are non-appealable orders. Because the trial court’s order was non-appealable, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear Barrett’s appeals and was required to dismiss them.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court’s order dismissing charges on the State’s motion to dismiss is not an appealable order in Texas criminal procedure.
- Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to hear criminal appeals unless they arise from a judgment of conviction or an order made appealable by statute.
- Defendants who wish to challenge dismissal orders may need to pursue other remedies, such as seeking a writ of mandamus, rather than direct appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the boundaries of appellate jurisdiction in Texas criminal cases and demonstrates that not all unfavorable trial court orders can be appealed. When the State obtains a dismissal of charges, appellants cannot simply appeal that favorable outcome to the State through the normal appellate process. This protects finality in criminal cases and prevents the State from circumventing the Double Jeopardy Clause by appealing acquittals or dismissals.
The opinion also illustrates the importance of responding to appellate court notices regarding jurisdictional defects. Had Barrett identified any alternative basis for jurisdiction, he could have preserved his right to appeal, though the court’s holding suggests there was no viable avenue for appeal in this case. The court noted that Barrett’s other related appeals in cause numbers 02-26-00182-CR through 02-26-00186-CR remain pending.