MEMORANDUM OPINION

Proceeding pro se, appellant, James Ray Johnson, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order granting a motion for a psychiatric examination in the trial court proceeding.^[1] We dismiss the appeal.

The right to appeal in criminal cases is conferred by statute, and a party may appeal only from a judgment of conviction or an interlocutory order as authorized by statute. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; see also Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order in a criminal case unless jurisdiction has been expressly granted by statute. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52; see also State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (explaining appeals “in a criminal case are permitted only when they are specifically authorized by statute”). In this case, appellant attempts to appeal the trial court’s interlocutory order requiring an examination to determine if he was incompetent to stand trial. “Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to make an interlocutory appeal relating to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46B.011; see Queen v. State, 212 S.W.3d 619, 622 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.); see, e.g., Palmer v. State, No. 01-18-00367-CR, 2018 WL 2925712, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 12, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal of trial court’s order granting motion for psychiatric evaluation).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).