In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-16-00019-CR

KEVIN BRYAN FARRAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 41108-A

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kevin Bryan Farrar pled guilty to forgery of a financial instrument. In accordance with his 

negotiated plea agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced Farrar to two years’ confinement 

in state jail, but suspended the sentence in favor of placing Farrar on community supervision for 

five years. However, after Farrar pled true to the State’s allegations that he violated the terms and 

conditions of his community supervision, the trial court revoked Farrar’s community supervision 

and sentenced him to fifteen months’ confinement in state jail. 

On appeal,1 Farrar argues that his sentence violated his Eighth Amendment protections 

because it was disproportionate to his crime. Because we find that we are without jurisdiction to 

address the merits of Farrar’s sole issue on appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

When a defendant is convicted of a crime and placed on community supervision, the 

Legislature has placed restrictions on his right to appeal certain matters. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 23(b) (West Supp. 2016). With limited exceptions not present here, “an 

appeal from an order revoking [community supervision] is limited to the propriety of the 

revocation and does not include a review of the original conviction.” Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 

492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see Corley v. State, 782 S.W.2d 859, 860, n.2 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1989); Hoskins v. State, 425 S.W.2d 825, 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967); Stafford v. 

State, 63 S.W.3d 502, 508 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d) (per curiam); see also King v. 

State, 161 S.W.3d 264, 266–68 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref’d).

 

1

In cause numbers 06-16-00020-CR and 06-16-00021-CR, Farrar also appeals the trial court’s revocations of 

community supervision and sentences for forgery and possession of a controlled substance. 
3

Recognizing the jurisdictional defect, this Court provided Farrar, by letter dated August 9, 

2016, with an opportunity to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over this appeal. Farrar’s 

response asserted that he was attacking the propriety of the revocation because he was relying on 

the reporter’s record from the revocation in asserting his complaint. However, because Farrar’s 

sentence was pronounced at the time he was placed on community supervision, the claim that his 

sentence is disproportionate is necessarily an attack on the punishment he received at the time he 

was placed on community supervision. Consequently, we conclude that Farrar does not attack the 

propriety of the revocation. 

We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to address the merits of Farrar’s sole point of 

error. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Ralph Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: August 26, 2016

Date Decided: November 17, 2016

Do Not Publish