Charleston Clark Singletary v. State ( 2013 )

Opinion issued February 21, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00529-CR
———————————
CHARLESTON CLARK SINGLETARY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 337th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1156595
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Charleston Clark Singletary, attempts to appeal from a
modification to the term 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 of appellant’s guilt, 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 April 3, 2012, appellant
moved to recuse the trial judge presiding over the case. The trial judge denied
appellant’s motion the same day. On May 2, 2012, the administrative judge denied
appellant’s motion to recuse the trial judge. On May 4, 2012, the trial court
extended the term of appellant’s community supervision for two years. Appellant,
proceeding pro se, appealed.
Appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s modification of his community
supervision. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 § 22(a)(2) (West Supp.
2012) (extending term of community supervision constitutes modification). When
a community-supervision violation is proven, the trial court has the discretion to
continue or modify the terms of community supervision. Ex parte Doan, 369
S.W.3d 205, 212 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). A modification of 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,
2
pet. ref’d) (stating that no appeal lies from modification of terms of community
supervision).
Appellant states in his notice of appeal that he seeks to appeal the
modification on the grounds that his constitutional rights were violated because the
trial judge signed the modification while appellant’s motion to recuse was pending
before the administrative judge. The record shows, however, that the trial judge
signed the modification after the administrative judge had denied appellant’s
motion to recuse.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending
motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3