Opinion
13-22-00321-CR
08-18-2022
CINDY WATSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NORA L. LONGORIA, JUSTICE
Appellant, Cindy Watson, attempts to appeal a June 24, 2022 order modifying the terms of her community supervision. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
On July 18, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appears the order she was attempting to appeal is not appealable. 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 August 11, 2022, the Court received a response from the Honorable Travis Berry, appellant's counsel, informing the Court that the appellant does not have the right to appeal and that the appeal should be dismissed.
Generally, a state appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). Exceptions to the general rule include: (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, Tex.R.App.P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.
Our review of the documents before the Court does not reveal an appealable order entered by the trial court within thirty days before the filing of appellant's notice of appeal. The Court, having examined and fully considered appellant's notice of appeal, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order, and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.