Jose Santos Garcia v. State ( 2020 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-20-00082-CR
Jose Santos GARCIA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014CR3069
Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 1, 2020
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Appellant filed a notice of appeal which indicates he is appealing a conviction in Cause
No. 2014CR3069. The clerk’s record in this appeal contains an Order Modifying and Extending
Community Supervision signed on January 14, 2020. This court does not have jurisdiction to
consider an appeal from an order altering or modifying community supervision conditions. Davis
v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“There is no legislative authority for
entertaining a direct appeal from an order modifying the conditions of community supervision.”);
04-20-00082-CR
Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Quaglia v. State, 906 S.W.2d 112,
113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no pet.).
To the extent appellant wishes to appeal the original conviction, the trial court imposed
sentence in Cause No. 2014CR3069 on April 6, 2015. The trial court assessed punishment at ten
years’ imprisonment, which was suspended in favor of community supervision for a term of five
years. Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be
filed on May 6, 2015. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice
of appeal was due on May 21, 2015. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. On January 16, 2020, appellant filed a
Motion for Leave to File a Late Notice of Appeal. Because the notice of appeal in this case was
not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208,
210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that if an appeal is not timely perfected, the court of appeals
does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of appeal, and the court may take no action other
than to dismiss appeal; an appellate court may not suspend rules to alter time for perfecting appeal).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-