DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 27, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00213-CR 

No. 05-24-00214-CR 

KARYN LYNN HALL, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F22-12347, F23-12487 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

Karyn Lynn Hall appeals the trial court’s orders of January 11, 2024, which 

denied the State’s motion to revoke community supervision or proceed with an 

adjudication of guilt, modified the conditions of community supervision, and 

extended the term of community supervision. The orders were not appealable 

orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. 

In cause number F22-12347, appellant was indicted for possession on 

September 8, 2022, of less than one gram of methamphetamine. In cause number 

F23-12487, appellant was charged by information with possession on September 19, 
 –2– 

2023, of less than one gram of methamphetamine. On November 1, 2023, appellant 

pleaded guilty to both offenses. The trial court deferred adjudication of appellant’s 

guilt and placed her on community supervision for two years. The conditions of 

community supervision included a requirement that appellant participate in 

treatment at the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center Program Lancaster. 

Appellant did not file a notice of appeal applicable to these orders. 

On November 30, 2023, the State filed in each case a motion to revoke 

community supervision or proceed with an adjudication of guilt. The State alleged 

appellant failed to comply with the conditions of community supervision because 

she failed to participate in treatment at the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center 

Program Lancaster. 

On January 11, 2024, appellant pleaded true to the State’s motions to revoke 

or adjudicate. The trial court denied the State’s motions, added two new conditions 

of community supervision, and extended the term of community supervision by three 

months. 

On February 2, 2024, appellant, pro se, filed a document styled “Motion to 

Appeal Guilty Plea” stating, “I, Karyn Hall, do hereby appeal my guilty plea on date 

1/11/24 for ineffective counsel.” 

The records show appellant’s “guilty plea on date 1/11/24” was in each case 

a plea of true to the State’s motion to revoke or adjudicate. The trial court’s orders 

based on the pleas were the denial of the State’s motions to revoke or adjudicate, the 
 –3– 

extension of the term of community supervision, and the modification of the terms 

of community supervision. The court of criminal appeals has held that none of these 

are appealable orders. See Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2006); Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Without an 

appealable order, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider these appeals. Abbott v. 

State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Nikrasch v. State, 698 S.W.2d 

443, 450 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no pet.). 

We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

240213F.U05 

 

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

KARYN LYNN HALL, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00213-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District 

Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F22-12347. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Nowell 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for 

want of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered this 27th day of March 2024. 

 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

KARYN LYNN HALL, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00214-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District 

Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F23-12487. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Nowell 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for 

want of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered this 27th day of March 2024.