Court Opinion

ID: 9927881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 15:11:44.124089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:31:44.791367
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                    San Antonio, Texas
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                        No. 04-23-01063-CR

                                      Maria Luisa PADILLA,
                                             Appellant

                                                 v.

                                       The STATE of Texas,
                                             Appellee

                     From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2022CR6445
                              Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:         Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                 Irene Rios, Justice
                 Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 24, 2024

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community

supervision in August 2022. On August 29, 2023, the trial court signed an “Order Amending

Conditions of Community Supervision.” On December 1, 2023, appellant filed a pro se notice of

appeal, appearing to appeal the trial court’s order amending the conditions of community

supervision. However, 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
                                                                                    04-23-01063-CR

708, 710-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977);

Quaglia v. State, 906 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no pet.).

       Based on the foregoing, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing no later than January

10, 2024 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On that day, appellant’s

appointed counsel responded, explaining he could find “no certified right of appeal for appellant”

and this court “must dismiss this attempted appeal.”

       Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                 PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                               -2-