Opinion
NUMBER 13-15-00472-CR
04-07-2016
PEDRO ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 9th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum OpinionPer Curiam
Appellant, Pedro Alvarez, attempts to appeal an August 11, 2015 order modifying the terms of his community supervision. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
This case was transferred to this Court from the Ninth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). --------
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the state-jail felony offense of theft. The trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community supervision. The appellant did not file a notice of appeal at that time, but instead brought this appeal of the trial court's subsequent orders signed on July 25, 2015 granting the State's motion to withdraw its motion for adjudication, terminating the conditions of appellant's community supervision, and discharging appellant "unsatisfactorily" from probation. The State has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction and appellant has filed a response thereto.
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).
III. CONCLUSION
The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal, the State's motion to dismiss, and the response of the appellant, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Accordingly, we GRANT the State's motion to dismiss and we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Davis, 195 S.W.3d at 710; Basaldua, 558 S.W.2d at 5. All other pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 7th day of April, 2016.