### NUMBER 13 - 10 - 00262 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

KIMBERLY GALINDO , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 156 th District Court

of Bee County, Texas

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza Appellant, Kimberly Galindo, was convicted of assaulting a public servant, a third

- degree felony

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.01(a)(1) ( West Supp. 2010 ).
Punishment was assessed a t ten years’ imprisonment and a $2,500 fine , with the prison term suspended and community supervision imposed for ten years. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 42.12, § 3 ( West Supp. 2010 ). Su bsequently, Galindo’s2

community supervision was revoked and she was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Galindo argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting a second motion to revoke filed by the State. We vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
I. B ACKGROUND On November 21, 2006 , Galindo was convicted of assaulting a public servant i n trial court cause number B

- 06

- 2162

- 0

- CR

- B. Her ten

- year prison sentence was suspended and she was placed on community supervision. Se e id. On November 17, 2009, the State filed a motion to revoke Galindo’s community supervision, alleging that
she had committed the crime of theft of property valued at $500 or more but less than $1,500, a Class A misdemeanor. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 31.03(a), (e)(3) ( West Supp. 2010 ). The trial court granted the State’s motion on December 29, 2009, revoked Galindo’s community supervision , sentenced her to eight years’ imprisonment, and assessed a $2,5 00 fine. Galindo perfected an appeal of the December 29, 2009 judgment on January 25, 2010. She also posted an appeal bond in th e amount set by the trial court

. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 44.04(c) ( West 2006 ). On July 15, 2010, we affirmed the
trial cou rt’s December 29, 2009 revocation of Galindo’s community supervision. Galindo v. State , No. 13

- 10

- 00025

- CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 5534, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi July 15, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The State filed a se cond motion to revoke on March 16, 2010, while the appeal of the trial court’s December 29, 2009 order was still pending. The State alleged in this motion that Galindo violated the terms of her community supervision by: (1)3

intentionally and knowingly po ssessing and using less than one gram of cocaine, and (2) intentionally and knowingly consuming alcohol. Galindo stipulated to the truth of the allegations in this motion. On April 13, 2010, the trial court granted the motion and again revoked Galindo’s community supervision in trial court cause number B

- 06

- 2162

- 0

- CR

- B . Galindo was again sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and assessed a $2,500 fine

. This appeal followed.
II. D ISCUSSION The trial court’s two judgments

— dated December 29, 2009 and April 13, 2010

— each purported to revoke the same order imposing c ommunity supervision, and each sentenced Galindo to eight years’ imprisonment and assessed a $2,500 fine. However, Galindo could not have been subjected to multiple punishments for the same underlying offense. See, e.g. , U.S. C ONST

. amend. V; Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333, 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
We note that t he trial court would have had jurisdiction to consi der a request by the State to revoke Galindo’s appeal bond, the terms of which w ere purportedly set at the time the original community supervision order was revoked on November 17, 2009

. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 44.04(c) (providing that, pendin g the appeal of a felony conviction, the trial court may ― permit the defendant to remain at large on the existing bail, or, if not then on bail, admit him to reasonable bail until his conviction becomes final.

. . . The court may impose reasonable conditi ons on bail pending the finality of his conviction. On a finding by the court on a preponderance of the evidence of a violation of a condition, the court may revoke the bail ‖). However, the State did not seek revocation of Galindo’s appeal bond; rather, it sought revocation of her community4

supervision. Because Galindo’s community supervision had already been revoked pursuant to the December 29, 2009 order, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the State’s request. We sustain Galindo’s sole is sue on appeal.
III. C ONCLUSION We vacate the trial court’s April 13, 2010 judgment and dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction.

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA Justice Do not p ublish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) Delivered and filed the 22nd day of August , 2011

.