## NO. 12-08-00252-CR
IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

LISA TYLER OVERS TREET, § APPEAL F ROM THE S ECOND APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF
TH E ST ATE OFTEX

AS, APP ELL EE § CHER OK EE CO UN TY

, T EXAS
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION App ell a nt L isa

Ty le r O ve rs tr e e t c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n to rende r an or der a djudicating her guilt y of t he offense of forge ry and assessing a two year sentenc e. Appellant brings two issues, the first of which is dispositi ve. In her first issue, she cla ims that the trial court wa s without jurisdi cti o n t o adjudicate her guilt afte r the e xpiration of her period of community supervi s i o n, beca use no ca

pias for he r ar

rest had be en issued bef ore the term of community supervision imposed had expire d. We sustain Appellant’s first issue, rever se the orde r adjudicating her

guilt, and order he r dischar ged.

B ACKG ROUND Appellant plea ded guilty to forgery, and the tr i al co urt defe rre d adjudication of guilt and place d her o n community supervision for a te rm of thre e yea rs. Late r, Appe llant approve d the mod if ic a tio n o f the te rm s a ndc on dit ion s of he r co mmu nit y sup e rv isi on
. Pur su a nt to the a gr e e me nt, the trial court ordere d Appellant to make a ddi t i o n al payments a nd further order ed her

period of community s u p e r v is io n e x te n d e d to e x p ir e o n M ar c h 1 4 , 2 0 0 8

. A f te r th e tria l c o u r t o r d e r e d the extension, Appe llant was convic ted of marijuana possession and a ls o fa i l ed to make various pa yme nts or de re d by the tr ia l cou rt

. Be fo re he r te rm of c ommun ity su pe rv isi on e xp ir e d, the Sta te filed its application to revoke Appellant’s community supe rvision and to proce ed to an a djudication2

of guilt. Howeve r, a ca p i as fo r h er arr est did not issue until Marc h 20, 2008, six days afte r the expiration of the period of community supervision. The t ri al court conducted a hearing on the State’s application to a djudicate guilt on May 6, 2008. The trial court found the alleg at i o n s of Appellant’s marijuana use true , adjudicate d Appellant guilty, an d as s es s ed her punishment at

c on fi ne me nt f

or tw o y e ars
.
J URI S DI CT I ON In he r f ir st i ssu e , A pp e lla nt c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l cou rt wa s w ith ou t ju ri sd ic tio n to a dju dic a te her guilt , beca

use her period of c ommunity s upervision had e xpired be fore the issuance of a c apias fo r h e r a rr e st. Appli cable Law Texa s Code of Criminal Proc edure article 42.12 governs community supervision. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P R OC
. A NN
. art . 42. 12 (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ); In r e Che rry , 258 S.W.3d 328, 332 (Tex. App.–Austin 2008, orig. proce eding). Section 5 of the same article contains the pr o v i s i ons specific ally rela ted to de fer red a djudication. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P R OC
. A NN . art. 42.12 § 5 (V ernon Supp. 2008). When the trial court defer s adjudication of a defenda nt’s guilt and places the defe ndant

on community supe rvision, the trial court reta ins jurisdiction over the proba tioner for

the dura tion of community service imposed, and may re voke, term i n at e, or modify the probation. See id. art

. 42 .1 2 § § 5 (a ), 5( b) , 2 0, 22 (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). At the e xp ir a tio n o f the pe ri odof c ommun ity service imposed, the trial court, if it has not procee ded to an a djudication of guilt, must “dism iss the proce edings against t he defenda nt and dis char ge him .” Id. art. 42.12 § 5(c) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Th e tr ia l c ou rt , h ow e ve r, re ta ins jurisd ic tio n to pr oc e e d wi th an a dju dic a tio n o f g uil t, d e sp ite the expiration of the term of c ommunity s ervic e imposed, “ i f bef ore the expiration the attorney repr esenting the state files a motion to proce ed with the adjudication and a capias is issued for the

ar re st o f th e de fe nd an t. ” Id. art. 42.12 § 5(h) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008) (e mphasis a dded). The identica l jurisdictional limi tati o n s ar e found in sec tion 21(e), whic h provides that the tria l court re tains jurisdiction to revoke, c ontinue, or modify community service afte r the probationa ry p eriod ha s expire d, if, befor e the term of community service expire s, the attorney r epre senting the state “f iles

a mot ion to r e vo ke , c on tin ue , o r m od if y c ommun ity su pe rv isi on a nd a c apia s is iss ue d for the arr e st of the de fenda nt.” Id . art. 42.12 § 21(e ) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008).3

Judicial ac tion taken af

ter the court’s jurisdiction over a cause has expired i s a nullity. Sta te
e x re l
. L att y v . O we ns , 9 07 S.W .2 d 4 84 , 4 86 (T e x. 19 95 ); In re Hancock , 212 S.W.3d 922, 929 (Tex. A pp.–Fort Worth 2007, orig. proc eeding) . A court has no authority to act outside the pe riods permitted by statute. Hou liha n v . St ate , 579 S.W.2d 213, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) . A re view of the a uth or iti e s r e ve a ls a lon g, un c ha lle ng e d lin e of c a se s wh e re in the c ou rt s ha ve c on sis te ntl y h e ld that th e tr ia l c ou rt

ha s n o ju ri sd ic tio n to re vo ke pr ob a tio n a ft e r the te rm of pr ob a tio n e xp ir e s u nle ss the motion to revoke is filed a nd the ca pias issued prior to the e nd of the probationary period. In Po lla rd

v . St ate , 1 72 Te x. Cr im. 39 , 353 S.W .2 d 449 (1 96 2) , the Sta te fi le d a mo tio n to revoke probation six days befor e the term of probation expire d, but the order revoking probation wa s
reve rsed be cause no war

rant iss ued before the end of the probationary period. Id. , 172 Tex. a t 40, 353 S.W.2d at 449-50. In Cof fe y v . St ate , 500 S.W .2 d 515 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 73 ), the c ou rt he ld

a co n v ic ti o n v o id f

o r la c k o f ju r is d ic ti o n , b e c a u s e th e ap p li c a ti o n to r e v o k e w a s f il e d afte r the probationary period had expir ed although the c apias ha d been timely filed. Id

. at 516-17. In Lynch

v . St ate , 5 02 S.W .2 d 7 40 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 73 ), the c ou rt of c ri min a l app e a ls d e te rm ine d th a t, absent a showing that a ca

pias had issued du ri n g t h e t erm of pr obation, the trial court lacked authority to revoke Lynch’s pr obation. Id. at 741. In the more rec ent ca se of In re Hancock , cited by Appe l l an t , the trial court on September 10, 1999, pla ced H ancoc k on community supervision for ten ye ars. On January 28, 2005, the State and t h e d ef

en s e a g re ed t o v ar i o u s m o d i fi ca t i o n s o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f c o m m u n i t y s u p er v i s i on
a nde xte nd e d h is p e ri odof c omm un ity se rv ic e fo r o ne ye ar f ro m the date of

the he ari ng , e ff

e c tiv e ly abbre viating the original term imposed by over four year s. Six m onths after the end of

the shortene d term provided in its January 28, 2005 order , the trial court attempted to restore by judgment nunc pro tunc Ha ncock’ s original ten year probationary term. The State move d to revoke his probation

o n A u g u s t 1, 2006. I

n r e Hancock , 2 12 S.W .3 d at 92 4- 25 . T he Fort W or th C ou rt of Ap pe a ls de c ide d th e tr ia l cou rt ’s e rr or , if a ny , in sh orte nin g h is p ro batio na ry te rm wa s ju dic ia l, n ot c le ri c a l, and could not be c orre cted by judgment nunc pro tunc. Id . at 927-28. The court of a ppeals he ld that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke Ha ncock’ s probation, bec ause no motion to re voke had bee n filed and no c apias issued until over six months afte r the term set out in the ame nded orde r had expir ed. Id. at 929. Ab se nt the se tw o s ta tut ory r e qu ir e me nts , th e tr ia l c ou rt a lso la c ks jurisd ic tio n to pr oc e e d to4

an adjudication of guilt once the probationary period expire s. In r e Che rry , 258 S.W.3d at 332. In Ga rza v . St

ate , 695 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. A pp.–Dallas 1985), aff’d , 725 S.W.2d 256 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), the c ourt of appe als rec ognized that a trial court ha s jurisdiction to hear a motion and r evoke probation af

ter the e xpiratio n of the probationary period if the motion to revoke wa s filed and the capia s fo r ar re st issued prior to the expiration of the period. The court found, how ever , that the

re c or d d id n ot s ho w c omp lianc e wi th e ith e r c on dit ion . T he Sta te ’s a me nd e d mo tio n to pr oc e e d w ith an adjudication of guilt was not file stamped, and no capia s appea red in the r ecor d. The c ourt
reve rsed Ga

rza ’s conviction and r emande d the cause for entry of an acquittal. Id. at 729. In Pi no v . St

ate , 18 9 S.W .3 d 91 1 (T e x. Ap p. –T e xa rk a na 20 06 , pe t. re f’ d) , the Sta te fi le d it s motion and capias issued on the fifth anniversary of the t rial court’s order defe rring adjudication of Pino’s guilt and placing him on community supervision for five yea rs. The c ourt of appe als held that the term of his c ommunity supervision expire d on the day befor e the anniver sary date of t h e t ri al court’s order

. Id . at 912. Ther efor e, the State wa s one day la te in filing its m otion and obtaining the issuan ce of

a c apia s. Con se qu e ntl y, the c ou rt of app e a ls h e ld the tr ia l c ou rt la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n to proce ed with an a djudication of guilt. Id. at 915. W e c on c lud e that sinc e no c apia s f or Ap pe lla nt’ s a

rr e st i ssu e d b e fo re he r t e rm of c ommun ity

se rv ic e ha d e xp ir e d, the tr ia l c ou rt la c ke d jurisd ic tio n to pr oc e e d wi th a n a dju dic a tio n o f h e r g uil t. Appellant’s f

irst issue is sust ained. Bec ause w e conc lude that Appellant’s first issue is disposi tive, we will not addre ss Appellant’s sec ond issue. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1.

D I S PO S I T I ON Th e or de r a dju dic a tin g A pp e lla nt’ s g uil t is reve rsed and Appe llant is ordere d discharge d.


### BILL BA SS Justi ce Opinion delivere d April 30, 2009. P a n e l co n siste d o

f W o rth e n , C J ., H o y le , J., a n d B a ss, Ret i r ed Jus t i ce, Tw e lft h C o u rt of A

p p e a ls, Ty le r, sitt ing by as sig n m e n t.

(DO N OT PUBLISH)