Donald Keith Eddington v. State ( 1998 )

Donald Keith Eddington v. The State of Texas

  IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-98-318-CR

&

No. 10-98-319-CR

     DONALD KEITH EDDINGTON,

                                                                                   Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                   Appellee

From the 82nd District Court

Robertson County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 97-11-16,237-CR & 96-02-15,944-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In trial court cause number 96-02-15,944-CR, Appellant Donald Keith Eddington pleaded guilty on March 4, 1996 to delivery of cocaine in an amount less than one gram, a state jail felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(b) (Vernon Supp. 1999). Apparently the State made no plea recommendation, and the court placed Eddington on community supervision for a period of two years. The court revoked Eddington’s community supervision on November 24, 1997 after he pleaded true to the allegations of the State’s revocation motion. The court sentenced him to eighteen months’ confinement in a state jail.

      In trial court cause number 97-11-16,237-CR, Eddington pleaded guilty to an identical charge on the same date his community supervision was revoked. Pursuant to the State’s plea recommendation, the court sentenced him to eighteen months’ confinement in a state jail, which ran concurrently with his revocation sentence.

      After conviction, Eddington filed numerous pro se motions for “shock probation” beginning in January 1998. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 15(f)(2), (3) (Vernon Supp. 1999). The court denied each of these motions. He filed a pro se motion for suspension of further execution of his sentences on July 9. The court denied this motion on September 15. Eddington appeals the court’s September 15 order denying his motion for suspension of further execution of sentence.

      Eddington’s request for suspension of further execution of his sentences was a request for “shock probation.” See Ex parte Langley, 833 S.W.2d 141, 143 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 15(f)(2), (3). An order refusing to grant “shock probation” is not appealable. Houlihan v. State, 579 S.W.2d 213, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Perez v. State, 938 S.W.2d 761, 762 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                         PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis

            Justice Cummings and

            Justice Vance

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 31, 1998

Do not publish