Court Opinion

ID: 4526821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-04-18 02:14:52.156521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:25.751501
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-20-00010-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

CANDICE RENALLE CHAPA,                                                         Appellant,

                                             v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 36th District Court
                 of San Patricio County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
 Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa
             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

       Appellant, Candice Renalle Chapa, attempts to appeal a December 19, 2019,

order by the 36th District Court modifying the terms of her community supervision. On

February 14, 2020, this Court ordered appellant’s counsel to determine if appellant had a

right to appeal this matter. On March 16, 2020, this Court received a letter from appellant’s

attorney indicating there is no final appealable order and the appellant lacks the right to
appeal as noticed. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                     I. BACKGROUND

       Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pleaded guilty to two felony charges and was

placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. On December 19, 2019, the trial

court conducted a hearing on the state’s motion to revoke appellant’s deferred

adjudication community supervision. The trial court modified the terms of appellant’s

supervision and imposed a sanction of confinement and treatment in a Substance Abuse

Felony Punishment Facility. 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.

                                                              LETICIA HINOJOSA
                                                              Justice

Do not publish.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

Delivered and filed the
16th day of April, 2020.

                                            3