For mer jud g e s itti ng by as si g nment. Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. § 75.054( a) (3 )( Ver non 1 200 5). NO. 07-07 -049 3-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A NO VEM BER24, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ RODDY DEAN PIPPI N, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 46 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF HA RDE MA N CO UNT Y; NO . 388 0; H ON ORABLE JU AN ITA PAV LIC K, J UD GE 1

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ.
OPIN ION
On D ecem b e r 3 0 , 200 4, pu rs uant to a ple a ag re ement i n C ause No. 3880 (t he cause now on a ppe al), App ellant , Rodd y Dean Pipp in, w as convicted of the f t, a stat e jail felony

. Puni shmentw as ass ess ed attwo y ears c onfinement in a s tate jai l facil ity , w it h theT ex. C od e C ri m . Proc. An n. art. 4 2.0 8(a) (Vernon 200 6). Unless othe rw ise 2 ind ic ated, thi s a nd al l future re ferenc es to ar ti cl es re fer to the Te xas C o d e o f C ri minal Procedu re . At a ny ti me a fte r the 7 5 day after the date the d efendant i s recei v ed i nto t he 3 t h cus tody of a sta te jai l, the jud g e of t he or ig ina l tr ial cour t may sus pend furth e r exec uti on of the s entenc e and pla ce the defendant on communi ty super v is ion under the c ondi ti ons spec if ie d b y t h e co urt. Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. ar t. 42.12, § 15 (f) (2 ) (V er non Su pp. 2008)

. W hil e the record d o e s n ot c ontai n a c opy of the j udg ments est abl is hin g the 4 sent ences Appel lan t w as re q uired to ser v e cons ecut iv e to the sent ence in Cau se No. 3880, w e c an deter mine from the ple adi ng s c ontai ned i n the C ler k’ s R ecord tha t Ap pel lan t w as a lso co n vict e d o f two a d d it io n a l st a te ja il fe lo n ie s in Ca u se No s. 38 8 2 an d 38 8 5 . A lt h o u gh not d e term inative of

the disp osition of

this app eal, for purpo ses of this app eal w e w ill ass ume thatthe subs eq uent sent ences aboutw hic h Appe ll ant c omplai ns are the sent ences i n C ause Nos . 388 2 and 3885. 2 commenc ement of

sentenc e to beg in w hen t he s entenc e i n C ause No. 3879 ceas ed to operate. Ap pel lan t has di sc harg ed th e s entenc e i mposed in Cau se No. 3879 and t he

2 sent ence impos ed i n thi s c ause beg an on Aug ust6, 2006. W it hin the per iod sp eci fied by the Te x as Code o f

Crimin al Proced ure, A ppe llant f iled a mo tion request ing the trial court 3 to su sp e n d furt her

ex ecut ion of sent ence by pl aci ng hi m on “ shoc k p ro bati on.” O n Nov ember

8, 2007, the t ri al cour t s ig ned an order

g ra nti ng Appel lan t’ s m o ti on and suspe ndin g f urthe r impositio n of sente nce in Cau se No. 38 80. W ithou t challen ging his conv icti on, A ppel lan t present s tw o poi nts of er ro r cont e n d in g t h e tr ial co urt er re d by ( 1) deny ing sh ock

probati on i n the other cas es that he w as re q uired to se rv e c onsec uti v e to the s entenc e i n C ause No. 3880, and (2 ) impos ing upon him spec ial co ndi ti on 14 of the 4 condi ti ons of community su per visio n whic h req uires that upon c omplet ion of communi ty super v is ion in this cause, he re por t to the sher iff to beg in ser v ing the next s entenc e he w as re q uired to se rv e. W e di smi ss for want o f jur is dicti on.Ap p e lla n t was in hi s e a rly 20 's atth e tim e of th e he a rin g. 5 3 Back ground Facts Appel lan t t est ified at the h ear ing on h is appl ic ati on for shock probati on th at he has had di abetes sinc e ag e s ix

. Be fore hi s i ncarcerati on he w as abl e to cont ro l his co ndi ti on 5 by eat ing approp riate food s, regularly checking his blood su gar, and exercising. W hile Appel lan t w as ser

v ing hi s s e n tenc e i n C ause No. 3879, the medic al direct or of the s tate jai l facil ity

w here Appe ll ant was bei ng i ncarcerated, D r. Je ff D uncan , det er mined thatthe facil ity coul d not adeq uatel y monit or Appel lan t’ s medic al condi ti on. Dr . Dun ca n had Appel lan t t ra nsferred from t he s tate ja il fa cil ity to the J est er

II I U nitof the I nst it uti onal Div ision w here he cou ld receive t re a t m e n tt w ent y -four ho urs a day. Th e Jeste r III Unit house s a ll l ev els of ser iou s o ffenders a nd i s n ot rest ri cte d to sta te j ail felony offenders. App ellan t , a s we ll as som e of his fe llow

inma tes, te stif ied th at du ring his incarcerat ion his m edica l passes w ere not alw ays hon ored byg uard s and at time s there
w ere del ay s i n g etti ng Appel lan t medic al atten ti on dur ing so me of his se iz ures. Ap pel lan t soug ht reli ef byappl y ing for s hock probati on. At t he c oncl usi on of the tes ti mon y, d e fense couns el re q uest ed th at A ppel lan t be g ra nted shoc k p ro bati on on all remain ing consec uti v e sentenc es. D efense c ounse l arg ued that Appel lan t had been in cus tody i n a s tate jai l facil ity

f o r th e r e quired min imum of sev enty -fiv e day s. The Stat e, on the other hand, ass erted that arti cl e 4 2 .1 2 , § 15 (f) (2 ) all ow ed th e tr ial co urt t o s uspen d furt her ex ecut ion of the sente nce in Ca use No. 3880, but4

tha t the trial cou rth a d n o jurisdiction o v er the rem aining sent ence s beca use th ose sent ences had not y et be g un. Discus sion By tw o po ints of

error, Appe llant cha llenges the trial co u rt ’s ref usal to allow his sh o ckprobati on to appl y to his remaini ng se ntenc es and al so compl ain s o f condi ti on 14 of the trial court’s orde r g rantin g shock p roba tion which recites: [a]tthe conc lus ion of the 2 ye a rs p ro bati on, D efendant s hal l re por t t o the Hardeman C ounty

Sh e riff ’s D epar

tment, Quan ah, Tex as, to beg in ser v ing the s entenc e i n C ause No. 3 8 82. After 75 days h av e been ser v ed i n tha t sent ence the Defendant may file an appl ic ati on for shoc k p ro bati on w it h the Cou rt

. Ini ti all y , w e not e that arti cl e 42.12, § 15( f)( 2) req uires a defendant to be i n c ust ody for a mini mum of sev enty-fiv e days b efore t he tr ial co urt may su spend furth er

ex ecut ion of a sent ence and g ra nt s hock probati on. In t hose si tuati ons w here th e t ria l cour t has impos ed c umulat iv e s entenc es, the cour t lac ks jur is dicti on to co nsi der sh ock probati on for the s ubseq uent sent ence unti l the s entenc e in the f irst cas e ceases to operate. State ex re l. T hom as v. Banner

, 7 2 4 S

. W

. 2 d 8 1 (T e x. Cr im

. A p p . 1 9 8 7 ). I f t h e t ri a l c o u rtwo u ld h a ve g ra nted shoc k p ro bati on i n the re maini ng cas es before jur is dicti on to do so attac hed, the order pur por ti ng to do s o woul d be v oid

. Id. at 85

. Notw it hst andi ng the foreg oin g arg ument, the S tate arg ues that thi s C our t has no jur is dicti on to ente rt ain Appel lan t’ s a ppeal

. Rel y ing on Per ez v. Sta te , 938 S.W .2d 7 615

(Te x .Ap p.–Aust in 199 7, pe t. ref ’d), the Sta te cont end s t here is no auth orityfor this Court to rev iew an o rd er

g ra nti ng sh ock

probati on. W e ag re e. In Per ez , the Aus ti n C our

t of Appea lsco nsi dered th e defendant’ s r ig ht t o appea l from an o rd er

g ra nti ng shoc k p ro bati on as a q uest ion of firs t i mpres si on. Id. at 76 2. Perez ple d g uil ty

to attempt ed ag g ra v ated sex ual as saul t of a c h ild a nd w as sent enced to ten y ears c onfinement. W it hin the ti me al lowed by ar ti cl e 42.12, § 6( a) , the tr ial co urt g ra nted Perezsh ock

probati on. He appeal ed c omplai nin g of one of the condi ti ons of community super v is ion w hic h req uired hi m to repor t t o l aw enforc ement to compl ete all paper w or k for sex of fender reg is trati on w it hin sev en day s. T he State all eg ed the courtof appeal s d id not hav e j ur is dicti on. Ini ti all y , t he c our

t of appeals acknow led g ed there is no consti tuti onal rig ht to appea l a c ri minal co nv icti on. See Per ez , 9 3 8 S .W .2 d at76 2 (cit in g Phyn es v. State , 828 S.W .2d 1, 2 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) ). It also recog niz ed that the ri g ht to appeal is co nferred by the Leg is lat ure, an d a p arty may appeal onl y that w hic h the L eg is lat ure has auth or iz ed. See Per ez , 938 S.W .2d a t 762 ( ci ti ng M ar in v. State , 851 S.W .2d 2 75, 2 78 ( Te x.Cri m .App. 1993) ). See als oR u shi ng v . St ate , 85 S.W .3d 2 83, 2 85 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2002)

. F ind ing the C our

t of C ri minal Appea ls ’s dec is ion s i n Basa ldu a v . St ate , 55 8 S. W .2d 2 , 5 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1977) , and Houli han v. State , 579 S.W .2d 2 13 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979) , t o be i nst ru cti v e, t he c our

t c oncl uded i t did not hav e jur is dicti on ov er an a ppeal from an order g ra nti ng sh ock

probati on. Id. at 76 3.W e ex press no o pin ion as to w hether Ap pel lan t woul d be enti tl ed to reli ef under 6 arti cl e 42. 08( c) of the Tex as Co d e o f Cri minal Procedu re , w hic h w as added a fter t he Cou rt ’s dec is ion i n State ex r el. T hom as v. Banner

, 724 S.W .2d 81 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 87). See Act of

May 30, 19 87, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 513 , § 1, 19 87 T ex. Gen. La w s 212 5. At all re lev ant t imes to thi s a ppeal , ar ti cl e 42. 08( c) prov ide s t hat i f a defendant has been conv icted i n tw o or more case s and the courtsuspends imposi ti on of the sent ence in one of the c ases , t he co u rtm ay not order

a s entenc e of confin ement t o c ommence o n the compl eti on of a s uspen ded s entenc e for an offense. The ap parent c onfli ct betw een State ex rel. Thomas and article 42.0 8(c) is a question not pre sent ed b y this app eal. 6 In Basa ldu a , t he C our

t of C ri minal Ap p e a ls held t hat t here i s n o c onst it uti onal or s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i ty

p e r mi t t i n g a d i re c ta p p e a l fro m a n o rd e r m o d i fy i n g o r

re fu s i n g t o m o d i fy condi ti ons of prob a ti o n . In Houli han, the defendant app eal ed th e tr ial co urt’ s o rd er o v e r r u l i n g h i s mo t i o n t o p l a c e h i m o n s h o c k p ro b a t i on. As in Ba saldua , the Court held there w as no const it uti onal or statut or y authori ty

w hic h w oul d confer jur is dicti on upon an app ellate court to con sider an a ppe al f rom a n orde r pursuan t to article 42 .12 , § 6 [sho ck prob ation statu te in no n-stat e jail fe lonies]

. Houli han , 579 S.W .2d a t 216

. Base d on the
re asoni ng i n Basa ldu a and Houli han , the Aust in C o u rt o f Appe als held “[j]ust as the re is
no a uth orityfor an ap pea l from an orde r re fusing shoc k p ro bati on, n eit her i s t here aut hor ity for an ap pea l from an orde r gr a n ti ng shock p roba tion. ” Per ez , 938 S.W .2d a t 762

. (E mphasi s i n or ig ina l)

. Ap p e lla n t’ s a p p e a l p r e s e n t s a n o vel qu e st io n in th a t h e is e f fe ct ivel y con te st in g a cond ition of

t he trial co urt’s o rder grant ing of sh ock prob ation in t he case o n ap pea l, w hile si mult aneous ly

appeal ing the tr ial court ’s denial of shock probati on i n mul ti ple ca ses that a re n o t o n a p p e a l

. U n d e r t h e ra t i o n a l e s o f Basa ldu a , Houl iha n , and Per

ez , w e c oncl ude this Court ha s no jurisdiction to ent ertain Appe llant’s tw o po ints of error. 67

Con seq uentl y , t his appeal i s d is mis sed for w ant o f jur is dicti on. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
Publ is h.