Charleston Clark Singletary v. State ( 2014 )

Opinion issued February 27, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00304-CR
———————————
CHARLESTON CLARK SINGLETARY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 337th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1156595
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Charles Clark Singletary, attempts to appeal an unsatisfactory
termination of his community supervision. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
Appellant pleaded guilty to the felony offense of evading arrest with a motor
vehicle. The trial court deferred adjudication, placed him on community
supervision for two years, and assessed a $200 fine. On February 7, 2012, the
State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt, alleging that appellant had violated the
terms of his community supervision. On May 4, 2012, the trial court extended the
term of appellant’s community supervision for two years. On May 22, 2013,
appellant appealed the extension order, which this Court dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction on February 21, 2013.*
On February 22, 2013, the trial court held a status hearing and entered an
“Order Affecting Community Supervision,” which unsatisfactorily terminated
appellant’s community supervision and released him from any continuing
obligation under community supervision. On March 22, 2013, appellant filed a
notice of appeal of the trial court’s February 22, 2013 order. On June 3, 2013, the
Public Defender’s Office suggested that the order unsatisfactorily terminating
appellant’s community supervision was not appealable. The State did not file a
response. We agree with the Public Defender’s Office that the February 22, 2013
order is not an appealable order.
The trial court’s order modified the terms of appellant’s community
supervision by reducing the length of appellant’s supervision. A modification of
*
The appeal was in this Court as Cause No. 01-12-00529-CR, Charles Clark Singletary
v. State of Texas.
2
the terms and conditions of community supervision is not an appealable order. See
Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (stating that
complaint about condition that does not serve as basis for revocation cannot be
considered); Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224, 225 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d) (“The Legislature has not conferred the right to have an
order modifying community supervision conditions reviewed by appeal, and case
law directs that no such right exists.”).
A defendant has a right to appeal when his community supervision is
revoked and he is adjudicated guilty and sentenced. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
art. 42.12, § 23(b) (“When [the defendant] is notified that his community
supervision is revoked for violation of the conditions of community supervision
and he is called on to serve a sentence in a jail or in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, he may appeal the revocation.”). That is not the case here. The
record does not contain an order revoking appellant’s community supervision. Nor
does the record contain a judgment or any other document reflecting that appellant
was adjudicated guilty or that any sentence was assessed or imposed. Instead, the
trial court’s order terminated appellant’s community supervision.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending
motions as moot.
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4