Latisha Darlene Buhler v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Latisha Darlene Buhler v. State

DecidedMarch 9, 2006

Docket14-05-00906-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Latisha Darlene Buhler v. State (Latisha Darlene Buhler 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

Latisha Darlene Buhler v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 9, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 9, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00906-CR

LATISHA DARLENE BUHLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 954,666

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

Latisha Darlene Buhler entered a plea of guilty to injury to a child pursuant to a plea bargain and the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed her under community supervision for ten years and assessed a $500 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. The trial court did not adjudicate guilt, but amended Buhler=s conditions of community supervision. Buhler 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.

Buhler 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 9, 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 9, 2006

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 9, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00906-CR

LATISHA DARLENE BUHLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 954,666

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

Latisha Darlene Buhler entered a plea of guilty to injury to a child pursuant to a plea bargain and the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed her under community supervision for ten years and assessed a $500 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. The trial court did not adjudicate guilt, but amended Buhler=s conditions of community supervision. Buhler 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.

Buhler 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 9, 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)

Latisha Darlene Buhler v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latisha-darlene-buhler-v-state-texapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack