$4,188.00 U.S. CURRENCY AND ONE GENERAC 5500 WATT GENERATOR, Appellants, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 06-06-00052-CVCourt of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana.Submitted: June 12, 2006.
Decided: June 13, 2006.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Gregg County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2005-2464-CCL2.

Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CARTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice MORRISS.

The State of Texas began proceedings in which it sought the forfeiture of $4,188.00 and a Generac 5500 watt generator seized from Terry and Lachrisha Smith. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 59.02, 59.04
(Vernon Supp. 2005). The Smiths unsuccessfully sought to stay the forfeiture proceedings until disposition of any pending criminal matters in connection with the property. The Smiths’ notice of appeal clearly identifies the order from which they attempt to appeal: “In particular[,] Defendant seeks an Appeal of the Court’s failure on April 3, 2006, to Stay the pending Quasi-Criminal/Civil matter.” Such order is interlocutory in nature.

Generally, a Texas appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal only if it is from a final judgment. See Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992). An appellate court has jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. See Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998); Longview Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Vibra-Whirl, Ltd., 169 S.W.3d 511, 515 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.). The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code outlines interlocutory orders over which we have jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2005). Section 51.014 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a motion to stay forfeiture proceedings, and we have found no other specific statutory provision that would permit this Court to review this order. That being the case, this order is an unappealable interlocutory order over which we have no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction.