Opinion issued February 27, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00304-CR

———————————

CHARLESTON CLARK SINGLETARY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1156595

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Charles Clark Singletary, attempts to appeal an unsatisfactory 

termination of his community supervision. We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.
2

Appellant pleaded guilty to the felony offense of evading arrest with a motor 

vehicle. The trial court deferred adjudication, placed him on community 

supervision for two years, and assessed a $200 fine. On February 7, 2012, the 

State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt, alleging that appellant had violated the 

terms of his community supervision. On May 4, 2012, the trial court extended the 

term of appellant’s community supervision for two years. On May 22, 2013, 

appellant appealed the extension order, which this Court dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction on February 21, 2013.* 

On February 22, 2013, the trial court held a status hearing and entered an 

“Order Affecting Community Supervision,” which unsatisfactorily terminated 

appellant’s community supervision and released him from any continuing 

obligation under community supervision. On March 22, 2013, appellant filed a 

notice of appeal of the trial court’s February 22, 2013 order. On June 3, 2013, the 

Public Defender’s Office suggested that the order unsatisfactorily terminating 

appellant’s community supervision was not appealable. The State did not file a 

response. We agree with the Public Defender’s Office that the February 22, 2013 

order is not an appealable order.

The trial court’s order modified the terms of appellant’s community 

supervision by reducing the length of appellant’s supervision. A modification of 

 

*

 The appeal was in this Court as Cause No. 01-12-00529-CR, Charles Clark Singletary 

v. State of Texas. 
3

the terms and conditions of community supervision is not an appealable order. See 

Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (stating that 

complaint about condition that does not serve as basis for revocation cannot be 

considered); Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224, 225 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (“The Legislature has not conferred the right to have an 

order modifying community supervision conditions reviewed by appeal, and case 

law directs that no such right exists.”).

A defendant has a right to appeal when his community supervision is 

revoked and he is adjudicated guilty and sentenced. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

art. 42.12, § 23(b) (“When [the defendant] is notified that his community 

supervision is revoked for violation of the conditions of community supervision 

and he is called on to serve a sentence in a jail or in the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice, he may appeal the revocation.”). That is not the case here. The 

record does not contain an order revoking appellant’s community supervision. Nor 

does the record contain a judgment or any other document reflecting that appellant 

was adjudicated guilty or that any sentence was assessed or imposed. Instead, the 

trial court’s order terminated appellant’s community supervision.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending 

motions as moot.
4

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).