Opinion filed June 5, 2008

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-08-00148-CR

                                                    __________

                                   MAURICE EARL OLER, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

                                                          Taylor County, Texas

                                                  Trial Court Cause No. 23139-A

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

The trial court convicted Maurice Earl Oler of injury to an elderly individual and assessed his punishment at confinement for four years.  Pursuant to the  plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for six years.  We dismiss the appeal.

The trial court placed appellant on community supervision on October 12, 2007.  The same day, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), the trial court entered its certification of right to appeal, stating that appellant had no right to appeal and that appellant had waived his right to appeal.  A motion for new trial was not filed.  Appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal on May 12, 2008.  On May 19, 2008, the clerk of this court wrote the parties informing them that it appeared an appeal had not been timely perfected and directing appellant to respond showing grounds for continuing his appeal.  Appellant has filed a response.

In his response, appellant states that he first sent his appeal documents to the Court of Criminal Appeals.  He includes a copy of a letter from that court dated April 15, 2008.

In order to perfect an appeal, a notice of appeal must be timely filed with the clerk of the trial court.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), (c).  The notice of appeal was due to be filed on or before November 12, 2007, thirty days from the date the trial court placed appellant on community supervision.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).  The requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 for extending the time in which to file the notice of appeal were not met.  Absent a timely notice of appeal or compliance with Rule 26.3, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).

Appellant has also advised this court that on April 29, 2008, the trial court signed an order amending the terms and conditions of his community supervision.  We note that this is not an appealable order.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

June 5, 2008   

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.