In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-11-00019-CR

______________________________

DALSON LESCHALLE JAMES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 114-0913-10

 

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

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dalson Leschalle James received a probated sentence in Smith County1for possession of a 

controlled substance and was placed on community supervision. Among the conditions of 

community supervision, James was ordered to reimburse the Texas Department of Public Safety 

for ―$140 for the testing of the drugs in this case.‖ Now, on the State’s motion, the trial court has 

revoked James’ community supervision, because James possessed marihuana, used or consumed 

marihuana, used or consumed opiates, and possessed opiates. At the revocation hearing, James 

pled ―true‖ to the State’s allegations. The trial court revoked James’ community supervision and 

assessed his punishment at two years’ confinement.

In two points of error on appeal, James attacks only that part of the trial court’s original 

order2placing him on community supervision that ordered James to pay restitution.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment because James failed to timely appeal any issue 

concerning restitution.

Issues related to the original conviction are not generally cognizable on an appeal from the 

revocation of community supervision. Gossett v. State, 282 S.W.2d 59, 62 (1955); King v. State, 

 

1This case was transferred to this Court from the Tyler Court of Appeals as part of the Texas Supreme Court’s docket 

equalization program. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2005). We are not aware of any conflict between the 

precedent of the Tyler Court and the precedent of this Court on any issue relevant in this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

41.3.

2The trial court imposed the restitution orders in the original judgment finding James was guilty of possession of a 

controlled substance, accepting the plea bargain and recommendations, and placing James on community supervision. 

The payment of restitution was included as a condition of James’ community supervision, wherein he was to pay 

$10.00 per month, beginning in November 2010. 
3

161 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref’d); see Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 

658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (applying general rule to deferred adjudication). James does 

not allege that any exception to the general rule applies in this case. See Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 

664, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); cf. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 

―An appeal from an order revoking community supervision is limited to the propriety of the 

revocation.‖ Stafford v. State, 63 S.W.3d 502, 511 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d). 

The time for appeal begins when the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court.3 Coffey v. 

State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (unprobated fine properly included in 

judgment revoking community supervision).

Any error in the restitution order should have been appealed when James was convicted 

and placed on community supervision. At the time of the original judgment and sentencing, 

James failed to object to any restitution error or file a motion for new trial or an appeal from that 

judgment. Thus, this appeal fails.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: July 11, 2011

Date Decided: July 12, 2011

 

3

Further, the Tyler Court of Appeals has held that an error in a restitution order does not result in an illegal sentence. 

See Grindele v. State, No. 12–06–00168–CR, 2007 WL 1869323 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 29, 2007, pet. ref’d) 

(mem.op., not designated for publication). 
4

Do Not Publish