Erlinda Gonzales Lozano v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00659-CR Erlinda Gonzales LOZANO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023-CR-6646 Honorable Jennifer Peña, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 3, 2025 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision on May 12, 2025. On August 14, 2025, the trial court signed an “Order Amending Conditions of Community Supervision.” On October 7, 2025, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal that purports to challenge a sentence imposed on September 11, 2025. Because the clerk’s record does not indicate that the trial court imposed a sentence on that date, it appears that appellant 04-25-00659-CR wishes to challenge either the original order of deferred adjudication or the amendment of community supervision.

This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order altering or modifying the conditions of community supervision. See Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Quaglia v. State, 906 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no pet.). Furthermore, appellant filed the notice of appeal 148 days after the trial court entered the order of deferred adjudication and 54 days after it amended the terms of community supervision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a) (where criminal defendant does not timely file motion for new trial, notice of appeal is due 30 days after sentence is imposed or suspended in open court).

On October 20, 2025, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On November 12, 2025, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a response conceding that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-