Robert David Motal v. State ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-15-00540-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
ROBERT DAVID MOTAL, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 2nd 25th District Court
of Lavaca County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Robert David Motal, attempts to appeal an August 11, 2015 order
modifying the terms of his community supervision. We dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged with the third degree felony offense of injury to the elderly.
See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.04 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). Pursuant to a
plea bargain, appellant pleaded guilty and was placed on deferred adjudication
community supervision. The order of deferred adjudication did not require appellant to
pay restitution. On August 11, 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing regarding
modifying the terms of appellant’s deferred adjudication community supervision. The
trial court modified the terms of appellant’s supervision and imposed a requirement that
appellant pay $3,692.55 in restitution. This appeal ensued.
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).
2
III. CONCLUSION
The Court, having examined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the
matters before the Court, is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this
Court lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Because there is no appealable order,
we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Davis, 195 S.W.3d at 710;
Basaldua, 558 S.W.2d at 5. All pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
3rd day of December, 2015.
3