Court Opinion

ID: 4050549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 01:17:22.406937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:21.151926
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-15-00540-CR

                          COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

ROBERT DAVID MOTAL,                                                    Appellant,

                                        v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

            On appeal from the 2nd 25th District Court
                   of Lavaca County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

                Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria
                       Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       Appellant, Robert David Motal, attempts to appeal an August 11, 2015 order

modifying the terms of his community supervision. We dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.
                                     I. BACKGROUND

       Appellant was charged with the third degree felony offense of injury to the elderly.

See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.04 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). Pursuant to a

plea bargain, appellant pleaded guilty and was placed on deferred adjudication

community supervision. The order of deferred adjudication did not require appellant to

pay restitution.   On August 11, 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing regarding

modifying the terms of appellant’s deferred adjudication community supervision. The

trial court modified the terms of appellant’s supervision and imposed a requirement that

appellant pay $3,692.55 in restitution. This appeal ensued.

                                     II. JURISDICTION

       An appellate court has the obligation to determine its own jurisdiction.       See

Ramirez v. State, 89 S.W.3d 222, 225 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.);

Yarbrough v. State, 57 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref'd);

Laureles v. State, No. 13-13-00535-CR, 2014 WL 1669102, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi Apr. 24, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 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); see also

Helms v. State, No. 02-14-00170-CR, 2014 WL 3778283, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

July 31, 2014, no pet.) (per curiam mem. op., not designated for publication); Laureles,

2014 WL 1669102, at *1; Roberts v. State, No. 04-11-00154-CR, 2011 WL 2150762, at

*1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 25, 2011, pet. ref'd).

                                            2
                                     III. CONCLUSION

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the

matters before the Court, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this

Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Because there is no appealable order,

we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.        See Davis, 195 S.W.3d at 710;

Basaldua, 558 S.W.2d at 5. All pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.

                                                              PER CURIAM

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

Delivered and filed the
3rd day of December, 2015.

                                            3