Amber Lachelle Spicer v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Amber Lachelle Spicer v. State

DecidedMarch 2, 2006

Docket14-05-01275-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Amber Lachelle Spicer v. State (Amber Lachelle Spicer v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amber Lachelle Spicer v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 2, 2005

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 2, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-01275-CR

AMBER LACHELLE SPICER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1301063

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Amber Lachelle Spicer entered a plea of guilty to theft pursuant to a plea bargain and the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed her under community supervision for one year, and assessed a $300 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. The trial court did not adjudicate guilt, but amended Spicer=s conditions of community supervision. Spicer filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App. B Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). The exceptions include: (1) appeals from deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App.1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX.R.APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.BDallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

Spicer did not file a timely notice of appeal from the trial court=s decision to defer adjudication. The imposition of amended conditions of community supervision is not a separately appealable order. Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed March 2, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 2, 2005

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 2, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-01275-CR

AMBER LACHELLE SPICER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1301063

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Amber Lachelle Spicer entered a plea of guilty to theft pursuant to a plea bargain and the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed her under community supervision for one year, and assessed a $300 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. The trial court did not adjudicate guilt, but amended Spicer=s conditions of community supervision. Spicer filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App. B Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). The exceptions include: (1) appeals from deferred adjudication community supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App.1997); (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to reduce bond, TEX.R.APP. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.BDallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

Spicer did not file a timely notice of appeal from the trial court=s decision to defer adjudication. The imposition of amended conditions of community supervision is not a separately appealable order. Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed March 2, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Seymore.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Amber Lachelle Spicer v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amber-lachelle-spicer-v-state-texapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack