In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas ══════════ No. WR-92,482-01 ══════════ EX PARTE TERESA LYNN GRINSTEAD, Applicant ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus In Cause No. F44452-A in the 413th District Court From Johnson County ═══════════════════════════════════════ YEARY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Applicant pled guilty to two counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, a third-degree felony. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.129(a). The maximum period of community supervision authorized for her case was five years. See former TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12 § 3(b)(2)(B) (2010) (recodified as TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42A.053 § (d)(2)(B)(ii)) (“(b) In a felony case . . . the maximum period of community GRINSTEAD – 2

supervision is . . . (2) five years, for the following third degree felonies . . . (B) a third degree felony under Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code.”).

Still, the trial court placed her on community supervision for ten years. Applicant now claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction when it revoked her community supervision more than five years into her ten- year supervision period. The Court agrees, and so it grants relief, invoking the Court’s decision in Ex parte Lozoya, 666 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023). Majority Opinion at 2–3.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Lozoya, I respectfully dissent to the Court’s decision. See 666 S.W.3d at 631 (Yeary, J., dissenting) (“In my view, Applicant should be expected to have preserved the claim by objection in the trial court and, even if not timely preserved there, at least to have raised it on direct appeal from the revocation proceeding.”).

FILED: September 13, 2023 DO NOT PUBLISH