### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00283- CR

Richard Guy Jensen, Appellant

v. State of Texas, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 707 10, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On May 7, 2015, appellant Richa

rd Guy J ensen f iled a notice of

appea l stating that
he wanted to appea l from the trial court’s decision of Marc h 31, 2015. Howeve r, the decision made by the trial court on Marc h 31 was a denial of appellant’ s motion to rec onsider h i s motion for community supervision. Neither a motion for community supervision nor a motion to rec onsider a motion for community supervision is an appea lable order

. See Pippin v. State , 271 S

. W .3d 861, 863-64 (Te x . App.—Amar illo 2008, no pet.). Furthe rmore, e ven if such a n order was a ppeala ble, appellant’ s n o tice of appea l was filed more than thirty day s afte r t he March 31 decision and more than ninety day s af

t er the court’s denial of the initial motion for community supervision, which

o ccurred on J anuar

y 23, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P

. 26.2(a) (notice of appea l must be filed with i n thirty day s of date trial court enter s appea lable o rder; deadline extended to ninety day s afte r date

sentenc e is imposed if defe ndant files timely motion for new trial); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519,522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (in criminal case , notice of appea l filed afte r deadline but within fiftee nday extension window under Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 must be acc ompanied by motion for extension of time; lack of timely

motion for extension of tim e to f ile notice of appea l “ is not a mere proce dural irreg ularity ; it is a jurisdi ctional defect” ). We theref ore have no option other than to dismiss this 1

appea l for lac k of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland
Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: September

30, 2015
Do Not Publish

A further jurisdictional problem with this case is that on Aug ust 29, 2014, appellant timely 1 filed a notice of appea l from the Aug ust 7 judgme nt of conviction. Howeve r, on Se p t ember 19, 2014, appellant signe d and filed a letter seeking to withdraw his notice of appea l and stating that he “wa ive[d] appea l of the above ref ere nced matter and acc ept[ed] the judgme nt of t h e C o u rt.” I t appea rs that appellant’ s ori gi n al n o t i ce of appea l was never filed in this Court, and the trial court t o o k n o action in appellant’ s case betwee n the date the judgme nt of conviction was signe d an d J anuar y 23, 2015, when it denied appellant’ s motion for community supervision. On the trial court’s cer tification of appellant’ s rig ht to appea l, signe d Marc h 31, 2015, the trial court stated that appellant h ad the rig ht to appea l; on the trial court’s docket sheet for Marc h 31, there is a notation that t h e court “allows def to w/draw waiver of rt to appea l”; and on appellant’ s most rec ent notice of appea l, filed o n M ay 7, there is a notation stating that he “withdra ws his waiver of appea l.” Howeve r, it appea rs that on Marc h 31, which was more than 180 day s afte r sentenc e was imposed and order ed executed, the court was without plenar y power to take any actions in this case
. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 6(a) (trial co u rt has continuing jurisdiction to place defe ndant on community supervision for 180 da

y s from date of execution of sente nce)

. 2