Robert David Motal v. State
13-15-00540-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 3, 2015Background
- Robert David Motal pleaded guilty to third-degree felony injury to the elderly and received deferred adjudication community supervision under a plea bargain.
- The original deferred-adjudication order did not require Motal to pay restitution.
- On August 11, 2015, the trial court held a hearing and modified the terms of Motal’s community supervision to require payment of $3,692.55 in restitution.
- Motal filed an appeal challenging the August 11, 2015 order that modified his supervision.
- The Court of Appeals sua sponte reviewed its jurisdiction and considered whether the modification order was appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order modifying conditions of community supervision | Motal sought appellate review of the trial court’s modification imposing restitution | The State relied on precedent that orders altering community supervision conditions are not appealable to the court | The court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (orders modifying community supervision are not appealable)
- Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (same principle regarding nonappealability of certain community-supervision orders)
- Ramirez v. State, 89 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2002) (appellate courts must determine their own jurisdiction)
- Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (authority recognizing limits on appeals from community-supervision modifications)