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 TE XAS, 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 comm unity supervision or proceed with an adjudication of guilt, modified the cond itions of community supervision, and extended the term of community supervisi on. The orders were not appealable orders. Accordingly, we dismiss th e appeals for want of jurisdiction. In cause number F22-1234 7, appellant was indi cted for possession on September 8, 2022, of less th an one gram of methamphetamine. In cause number F23-12487, appellant was charged by info rmation with possessi on on September 19,–2– 2023, of less than one gram of methamphetamine. On N ovember 1, 2023, appellant pleaded guilty to both offenses. The trial court deferred adjudica tion of appellant’s guilt and placed her on community supervisi on for two years. The conditions of community supervision included a require ment that appellant participate in treatment at the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center Program Lancaster. Appellant did not file a notice of a ppeal 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 condi tions of community supervision because she failed to participate in treatment at the Dallas County Judici al Treatment Center Program Lancaster. On January 11, 2024, appellant pleaded tr ue to the State’s motions to revoke or adjudicate. The trial court denied th e State’s motions, added two new conditions of community supervision, and extended th e 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 St ate’s motions to revoke or adjudicate, the–3– extension of the term of community superv ision, and the modification of the terms of community supervision. The court of cr iminal 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 juri sdiction 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.—Dal las 1985, no pet.). We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)
240213F.U05 / Crai g 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, Dall as 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, Dall as 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.