Peggy Louise Whitted, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

Peggy Louise Whitted, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

NO. 03-18-00075-CR

Decided: April 20, 2018

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland


Peggy Louise Whitted was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for the offense of possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115 (setting out offense of possession of controlled substance listed in penalty group one); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42A.101 (authorizing trial courts to place defendants “on deferred adjudication community supervision”). After Whitted was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision, the State filed a motion to adjudicate, and the district court ultimately found that Whitted violated several of the conditions of her community supervision. At the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, the district court continued Whitted's deferred adjudication community supervision for five years and added additional terms to her community supervision, including requiring participation in a substance-abuse program. After the district court's ruling, Whitted filed a request stating that she would like to appeal and have “another chance at probation.” That request was construed by the district court clerk as a pro se notice of appeal. The district court's certification regarding Whitted's right to appeal states that she has no right to appeal because her deferred adjudication community supervision was not revoked.

“There is no legislative authority for entertaining a direct appeal from an order modifying the conditions of community supervision.” Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also id. (stating that “[a] complaint about a modification can, however, be raised in an appeal from a revocation if the validity of the revocation depends on the validity of the modification”). Similarly, “an order modifying the terms or conditions of deferred adjudication is not in itself appealable.” Id. at 711; see also Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224, 225 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd) (explaining that “[t]he Legislature has not conferred the right to have an order modifying community supervision conditions reviewed by appeal, and case law directs that no such right exists”).

For these reasons, we must conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

David Puryear, Justice