Amanda Leigh Hiltzman v. State

NUMBER 13-19-00255-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
AMANDA LEIGH HILTZMAN, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 36th District Court
of Aransas County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Appellant, Amanda Leigh Hiltzamn, attempts to appeal from an order modifying
the terms of her community supervision. We dismiss the appeal.
On January 2, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on a motion to revoke appellant’s
community supervision. The trial court ordered the term of community supervision to be
extended for a period of one additional year through July 10, 2021 and imposed additional
requirements. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 3, 2019.
The right to appeal is conferred by the legislature, and a party may appeal only
that which the legislature has authorized. Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 278 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1993). 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). To the contrary, there is no statutory basis for an appeal of an order
modifying a term or condition of probation. See Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224, 225
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). Case law has long held that an order
modifying or refusing to modify probation is not subject to appeal. See Basaldua v.
State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Perez v. State, 938 S.W.2d 761, 762-63
(Tex. App.—Austin 1997, pet. ref’d); Eaden v. State 901 S.W.2d 535, 536 (Tex. App.—El
Paso 1995, no pet.).
In this case, the record does not contain any order revoking Hiltzman’s community
supervision, adjudicating her guilt, or assessing a jail or prison sentence. The trial court’s
order of January 2, 2019 modified the terms of community service. Even if we had
jurisdiction, appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the
opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a).
2
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
27th day of June, 2019.
3