STATE V. GARCIA, 1977-NMCA-116, 91 N.M.
131, 571 P.2d 123 (Ct. App. 1977)
STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
Lupe GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
1977-NMCA-116, 91 N.M. 131, 571 P.2d 123
Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for
plaintiff-appellee.
Jack Smith, Albuquerque, for
defendant-appellant.
WOOD, C.J., wrote the opinion. HENDLEY and
LOPEZ, JJ., concur.
{1} The trial court granted
defendant's motion to suppress, the State appealed. We reversed, instructing
the trial court to deny the motion to suppress.
State v. Garcia,
90 N.M.
577,
566 P.2d 426 (Ct. App.1977).
{2} After remand, defendant
filed another motion to suppress which was denied by the trial court. Defendant
is attempting to appeal from that order which was entered on September 27,
1977. In this attempt, he relies on language of the trial court attempting to
grant an interlocutory appeal.
{3} There is no final
judgment in this case or any matter involving conditions of release. The appeal
does not come within the provisions of § 21-10-2.1(A)(1) or (2), N.M.S.A. 1953
(Repl. Vol. 4, Supp. 1975).
{4} The attempted
interlocutory appeal involves § 21-10-2.1(A)(3), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4,
Supp. 1975) and N.M. Crim. App. 203. Under these provisions, an interlocutory
appeal is with the permission of this Court. The trial court does not have
authority to grant an interlocutory appeal.
{5} No application for an
interlocutory appeals has been filed with this Court. The docketing statement
proceeds on the basis that the appeal is as of right. It is not.
{6} However, we treat the
docketing statement as an application for an interlocutory
{*132}
appeal. So considering the docketing statement, the application is denied.
HENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.