No. 13-09-00097-CR
Delivered and filed the December 10, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas.
Before Justices RODRIGUEZ, GARZA, and BENAVIDES.
Opinion by Justice RODRIGUEZ.
Appellant, Robert Kerwin, appeals from an order modifying his community supervision to require his attendance at a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFPF). We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
I. Background
The State filed a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision and to adjudicate guilt. Appellant pleaded "true" to all counts except 5, 6, and 10. After accepting appellant's pleas of "true" and "not true," the trial court heard evidence from the State and appellant and listened to arguments and recommendations of counsel. The State withdrew counts 5, 6, and 10, and the trial court found the remaining allegations true. However, rather than adjudicating guilt, the trial court continued appellant on community supervision, and as an additional term and condition of appellant's community supervision, ordered appellant to attend a SAFPF. Appellant perfected his appeal from this order, and his counsel filed an Anders brief with this Court. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). II. Appellate Jurisdiction
This is a direct appeal from an order modifying the conditions of appellant's supervision. There is no legislative authority, however, for entertaining such an appeal. 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); Lovill v. State, 287 S.W.3d 65, 74 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2008, pet. granted) (dismissing Lovill's direct appeal from the trial court's order modifying her probation for want of jurisdiction and reversing and remanding the same order denying her petition for writ of habeas corpus for which the court of criminal appeals has granted petition). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over appellant's direct appeal from the trial court's order modifying the conditions of his community supervision. See Davis, 195 S.W.3d at 710; Basaldua, 558 S.W.2d at 5; Lovill, 287 S.W.3d at 74. III. Conclusion
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because we have no jurisdiction to consider the appeal, counsel's motion to withdraw that was previously carried with the case is also dismissed for want of jurisdiction.