Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 2, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00502-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

After a plea of guilty, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community service for a period of ten years and was assessed a fine of $500.00.  The order deferring adjudication of guilt was signed August 25, 2003.  In December 2003, the State moved to adjudicate, but this motion was dismissed at the State=s request on December 15, 2003.  On April 4, 2005, the trial court signed a document entitled, A1st Amended Conditions of Community Supervision,@ which added a new substance abuse felony punishment facility and amended dates on fees, community service restitution hours, and GED participation.  No timely motion for new trial was filed.  Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed until May 5, 2005.

A defendant=s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).  A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal.  Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal.  Id. 

Additionally, an order amending the conditions of community supervision is not separately appealable.  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).  We have located no authority permitting an appeal from an order amending conditions of community supervision.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 2, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Hudson.

Do Not Publish C Tex.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