Court Opinion

ID: 9927475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-27 20:15:00.923574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:44.669547
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00535-CR

                              COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                       CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

JOE R. CARRASCO,                                                              Appellant,

                                                v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                             Appellee.

                     On appeal from the 214th District Court
                           of Nueces County, Texas.

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña
                    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

       Appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal an order modifying an order

of deferred adjudication in trial court case number 22FC-0381-F. We dismiss the appeal

for want of jurisdiction.

       On December 7, 2023, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appears that

there is no final, appealable judgment. Appellant was further notified that if the defect was

not corrected within thirty days from the date of the letter, the appeal would be subject to
dismissal. On January 8, 2024, appellant’s counsel responded by letter agreeing that this

Court does not have jurisdiction.

       On November 15, 2023, the trial court found that appellant was on probation upon

a judgment of deferred adjudication and had violated certain terms and conditions of his

community supervision. Accordingly, the trial court imposed sanctions requiring appellant

to participate in the substance abuse felony punishment facility (SAFPF). On December

5, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal the order modifying his

terms and conditions of his community supervision.

       The right to appeal is conferred by the legislature, and a party may appeal only

that which the legislature has authorized. Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 278 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1993). A defendant has a right to appeal when the community supervision is

revoked, and they are adjudicated guilty and sentenced. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

art. 42.12, § 23(b). However, there is no statutory basis for an appeal of an order

modifying a term or condition of probation. See Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224, 225

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). Case law has long held that an order

modifying or refusing to modify probation is not subject to appeal. See Basaldua v. State,

558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Perez v. State, 938 S.W.2d 761, 762–63 (Tex.

App.—Austin 1997, pet. ref’d); Eaden v. State, 901 S.W.2d 535, 536 (Tex. App.—El Paso

1995, no pet.).

       In this case, the record does not contain any order revoking community

supervision, adjudicating appellant’s guilt, or assessing a jail or prison sentence. The trial

court’s order signed November 15, 2023, added a sanction and/or modified the terms and

conditions of his community supervision by requiring him to participate in SAFPF.

                                              2
      The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the

opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the

appeal is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

                                                              L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                                              Justice

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

Delivered and filed on the
25th day of January, 2024.

                                            3