C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

L OREN L EL AND, Ap pe lla nt,
v.
TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 11 -0 00 83 -C R

Appea l from the 171st J udicial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 890D01312)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION L oren L eland attempts to appeal an or der de nying his motion to withdraw his g uilty plea and dismiss the indictment. Bec ause w e agree with the State that this order is not appea lable, we wi ll d ism iss the a

pp e a l. In 1989, L eland pled g

uilty to misapplication of fiduciar y proper ty and wa s place d on de fe rr e d a dju dic a tio n p ro batio n f or te n y e ars . In 1 99 9, the State fi le d a mot ion to a dju dic a te g uil t. T he c le rk ’s re c or d d oe s n ot c on ta in a n o rd e r gra

nti ngthi s mo tio n o r a

jud g me nt f

or ma lly adjudicatinghim guilty , but it does contain an orde r plac ing him on community supervision for te n y e ars or

un til he fi nis he d p ayingre sti tut ion . In 2 00 5, L e land fi le d a mot ion to t e rm inate his community

supervision, set aside the finding of guilt, and dismi ss the indictment. He cla imed that he had pa id the require d restitution. Aga in, the cler k’s re cord doe s not contain an orde r on th i s m o t i o n , b u tth e C o urta p p ar e n t l y d i s c h ar g e d

h i mf r o mc o m mun i ty

s u p e r v i s i o ni n2 0 0 5
. In October 2010, L eland f

iled a motion to withdraw his plea a nd dismiss the indictment. The trial court c oncluded that it did not have jurisdiction to g rant this motion.-2-

Th e Te xas C od e of

Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure pr ov ide s: At any time after

the def endant ha s satisfactor ily

completed one -third of the or ig ina l c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on pe ri od or tw o y e ars of

c omm un ity supervision, whiche ver is less, the pe riod of community supervision may

be reduc ed or te rminated by

the judg e. . . . Upon the satisfactory fulfillment of the conditions of community

supervision, and the e x piration of the pe riod of community

supervision, the judg e, by order duly enter ed, shall ame nd or modify the or ig ina l se nte nc e imp os e d, if ne c e ssa ry , to c on fo rm

to t he c omm un ity supervision period a

nd shall discharg e the de fenda nt. I f the judg e discha

rg es the defe ndant under

this section, the judge may set aside the ve rdict or pe rmit the defe ndant to withdraw the defe ndant’s plea , and shall dismiss the accusation, complaint, information or indictment ag ainst the defe ndant . . . . T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art . 4 2
. 1 2 , § 2 0 (a )( W es tS u p p . 2 0 1 0 ). An o rd er

al l o wi n g a defe ndant to withdraw his plea and dismissing the indictment under this statute has the eff

ect of removingnear ly

all penalties a

nd disabiliti es assoc iated with a c onviction. Se e id .; se e als o Cue lla r v . S

tate , 70 S.W .3d 815, 819-20 (Te x .Crim.App. 2002). The tria l court appa rently took the view that it only

had discre tion to gra

nt this relief at the same time that it discharg ed L eland from community

supervision. In his appellate br ief, L eland a rgues that there is no tim e limitation on the cour

t’s discretion bec ause the statute beg ins with the words, “At a ny time after

. . . .” After L eland f iled his appellate br ief, the State f iled a motion to dism iss, asserting that there is no statutory authorization for an a

ppeal f rom the trial cour

t’s order
. The rig ht to appeal is pure ly statutory . In reR. S. C. , 940 S.W .2d 750, 754 (Tex.App.-- El Paso 1997, no pet.). The r ight “ exis ts only to the extent provided by the L eg islature.” In re Cou rt o f I nq uir y , 148 S.W .3d 554, 555 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2004, no pet.) . The L eg islature has authorized appe als from c riminal convictions. See T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . a rt . 4 4. 02 (We st 20 06 ); Ab bo tt v . S

tate , 2 71 S.W. 3d

69 4, 69 7 n .8 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ); Cou rt o f I nq uir y , 148 S.W .3d at 555-56. It has also authorized appe als from orde rs adjudicating a defe ndant guilty

and-3-

from orde rs re voking pr obation. See T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 42.12, §§ 5(b) , 23(b). L eland ha s not pointed us to any statutory authorization for an a

ppeal f rom an orde r of the ty

pe at issue here
. The State re lies on a re cent unpublished opinion by the For t Worth C ourt of Appe als. See Kuros k yv . S tate , No. 02-10-00202- CR, 2011 W L255672 (Tex.App.--F ort Worth J an. 27, 2011,
no pe t.) (n ot d e signate d f

or pu bli c a tio n) . L ike L e land , K ur os ky fi le d a mot ion to s e t a sid e his conviction and dismiss the char g es many y ear s after

he had c ompleted his probation. Se e id
. 2011 WL 255672, at *1. Also as in this case, the trial court a ppare ntly conclude d that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. Se e id . The a ppellate c ourt dismissed the appea l, noting that “nowhe re ha s the leg islature provide d for the a ppeal of an orde r deny

ing a motion that is filed afte r the e x piration of a de fenda nt’s term of c ommunity

supervision and see ks to set aside the conviction and dismiss the char g es.” Id . 2011 WL 255672, at *2. We h ave no t f

ound a pu bli sh e d o pin ion

a dd re ssi ngthi s is su e . H ow e ve r, we pr e vio us ly held in an unpublished dec ision that “an orde r deny ing disc harg e fr om community supervision pursuant to ar

ticle 42.12, sec tion 20 is not an appe alable or der.” Dw y e r v . S tate , No. 08-01-00004- CR, 2002 W L27103, at *2 (Te x .App.--E l Paso J an. 10, 2002, pet. dism’d)( not desig nated f

or publication). L eland ha s not cited any

statutory authorization for this appea l, and we a re a war e of none
. Acc ording ly , the appe al is dismis sed.

J une 29, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice-4-

B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. (Do Not Publish)