NUMBERS 13-22-00391-CR, 13-22-00392-CR, 

& 13-22-00393-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JOANN FLORES, Appellant,

 v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 148th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

Appellant JoAnn Flores1 has filed notices of appeal from trial court cause numbers 

17FC-4472-E, 19FC-1904-E, and 20FC-1187-E in the 148th District Court of Nueces 

1 Appellant’s name appears in the notice of appeal and related documents as JoAnn Flores, Joann 

Flores, and Jo Ann Flores. This discrepancy is not material to our analysis.
2

County, Texas. These appeals were filed respectively in our cause numbers 13-22-

00391-CR, 13-22-00392-CR, and 13-22-00393-CR. In each case, appellant attempts to 

appeal from orders imposing sanctions and continuing or modifying probation. We 

address these three appeals in one memorandum opinion for judicial efficiency. We 

dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

As an appellate court, we have the obligation to determine our jurisdiction over 

these appeals. See Ramirez v. State, 89 S.W.3d 222, 225 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

Edinburg 2002, no pet.); Yarbrough v. State, 57 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 

2001, pet. ref’d). “[I]n Texas, appeals by either the State or the defendant in a criminal 

case are permitted only when they are specifically authorized by statute.” State ex rel. 

Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 44.02 (addressing the defendant’s right to appeal in a criminal case); TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(a)(2) (same). “The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the 

appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott v. State, 

271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see Wilson v. State, 644 S.W.3d 761, 

762 (Tex. App.—Austin 2022, no pet.). This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider 

an appeal from an order altering or modifying the conditions of community supervision. 

See Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Basaldua v. State, 558 

S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224, 225 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d).

On August 24, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that 

there was no final, appealable judgment in these causes and advised appellant that the 
3

appeals would be subject to dismissal unless the defect was corrected within thirty days. 

Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s notices.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the 

opinion that these appeals should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

13th day of October, 2022.