Charlie Castaneda v. State
This text of Charlie Castaneda v. State (Charlie Castaneda 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.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________
No. 07-19-00049-CR ________________________
CHARLIE CASTANEDA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 137th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013-437,254; Honorable John J. McClendon III, Presiding
August 9, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
In 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant, Charlie Castaneda, was
convicted by the trial court of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine in an
amount of four grams or more but less than 200, a first degree felony.1 Punishment was
assessed at ten years confinement, suspended in favor of five years community
1 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(a), (d) (West 2017). supervision. In May 2018, the State alleged that Appellant had committed numerous
violations of the conditions of his community supervision and filed a motion to revoke.
Later that year, a hearing was held on the State’s motion. Appellant entered pleas of not
true to all allegations and the proceeding continued. Following presentation of the
evidence, the trial court found some of the State’s allegations to be not true and others to
be true. The trial court expressed concern about Appellant’s use of controlled substances
and instead of revocation, signed a judgment extending the term of community
supervision by one year and adding the condition that he be sent to a Substance Abuse
Felony Punishment Facility—Special Needs for not less than ninety days and no more
than one year. Appellant expressed a desire to appeal the added condition and on
defense counsel’s request, the trial court signed a Trial Court’s Certification of
Defendant’s Right of Appeal of the Judgment Modifying Probation After Hearing.
BACKGROUND
Appellant suffers from debilitating injuries resulting from a serious car accident that
occurred in 2003. Those injuries resulted in permanent disabilities that require constant
medical supervision and medications. Appellant also suffers from anxiety and takes
Xanax. He also has a history of alcohol and substance abuse. During the period of
community supervision, he was living with his mother and did not have reliable
transportation. There was no public transportation in the area for him to comply with
some of the conditions of community supervision.
APPLICABLE LAW
“The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded
by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694,
2 697-98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (citing TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a)). 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). In Basaldua v.
State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977), the Court of Criminal Appeals held there
is no constitutional or statutory authority permitting a direct appeal from an order
modifying or refusing to modify conditions of community supervision. See Shortt v. State,
539 S.W.3d 321, 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (Keller, P.J., dissenting) (recognizing that
the right to appeal orders in criminal cases is rare and when it exists, it is specific to that
particular kind of order).
ANALYSIS
By a sole issue, Appellant contends the State failed to prove and the trial court
failed to issue specific findings about his need to attend a Substance Abuse Felony
Punishment Facility—Special Needs. Because the Legislature has not authorized a direct
appeal from an order modifying the conditions of community supervision, we conclude we
have no jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s issue.2
CONCLUSION
This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Patrick A. Pirtle Justice
Do not publish.
2 In her dissent, Judge Keller noted that a constitutional challenge to a condition of probation can
be raised in a habeas application under article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (West 2015). Shortt, 539 S.W.3d at 329. 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Charlie Castaneda v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charlie-castaneda-v-state-texapp-2019.