Robert Trostel v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00168-CR
No. 02-22-00169-CR
___________________________
ROBERT TROSTEL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 235th District Court
Cooke County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. CR20-00064, CR20-00065
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Robert Trostel attempts to appeal from an order denying his motion
to modify the conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision in two
cases. But “we have no jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion to modify
the conditions of deferred adjudication community supervision” as it is not a final
judgment or an appealable order. Bater v. State, Nos. 02-18-00420-CR, 02-18-00421-
CR, 02-18-00422-CR, 2018 WL 5993341, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 15,
2018, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1977) (holding that an order granting or denying a motion to modify
probation conditions is not appealable); see also Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 711
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (noting that “an order modifying the terms or conditions of
deferred adjudication is not in itself appealable”); Corona v. State, Nos. 02-19-00060-
CR, 02-19-00061-CR, 2019 WL 2134163, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 16,
2019, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (reiterating that “[o]rders modifying conditions
of community supervision are not appealable”).
Accordingly, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction
over his appeals.1 We warned that we would dismiss the appeals for want of
1
Initially, we notified Appellant of our jurisdictional concerns because, among
other things, the trial court’s certification indicated that these were plea-bargain cases
and that Appellant had no right to appeal in either case. Appellant responded by
clarifying that he intended to appeal the trial court’s ruling on his motion to modify
the conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision. We replied with a
2
jurisdiction unless, within ten days, Appellant or any other party showed grounds for
continuing the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. More than ten days have passed,
and we have not received a response.
Therefore, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
43.2(f); see also Corona, 2019 WL 2134163, at *1 (dismissing for want of jurisdiction
after attempted appeals from orders modifying conditions of deferred adjudication
community supervision); Bater, 2018 WL 5993341, at *1 (similar).
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth
Chief Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: October 6, 2022
letter reiterating our jurisdictional concerns due to the lack of an appealable order.
Appellant has not responded to our second letter.
3