JoAnn Flores v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

NUMBERS 13-22-00391-CR, 13-22-00392-CR,
& 13-22-00393-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
JOANN FLORES, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 148th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
Appellant JoAnn Flores 1 has filed notices of appeal from trial court cause numbers
17FC-4472-E, 19FC-1904-E, and 20FC-1187-E in the 148th District Court of Nueces
1 Appellant’s name appears in the notice of appeal and related documents as JoAnn Flores, Joann
Flores, and Jo Ann Flores. This discrepancy is not material to our analysis.
County, Texas. These appeals were filed respectively in our cause numbers 13-22-
00391-CR, 13-22-00392-CR, and 13-22-00393-CR. In each case, appellant attempts to
appeal from orders imposing sanctions and continuing or modifying probation. We
address these three appeals in one memorandum opinion for judicial efficiency. We
dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.
As an appellate court, we have the obligation to determine our jurisdiction over
these appeals. See Ramirez v. State, 89 S.W.3d 222, 225 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–
Edinburg 2002, no pet.); Yarbrough v. State, 57 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2001, pet. ref’d). “[I]n Texas, appeals by either the State or the defendant in a criminal
case are permitted only when they are specifically authorized by statute.” State ex rel.
Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 44.02 (addressing the defendant’s right to appeal in a criminal case); TEX. R.
APP. P. 25.2(a)(2) (same). “The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the
appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott v. State,
271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see Wilson v. State, 644 S.W.3d 761,
762 (Tex. App.—Austin 2022, no pet.). 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).
On August 24, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that
there was no final, appealable judgment in these causes and advised appellant that the
2
appeals would be subject to dismissal unless the defect was corrected within thirty days.
Appellant did not respond to the Clerk’s notices.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the
opinion that these appeals should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
DORI CONTRERAS
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
13th day of October, 2022.
3