Sheryl D. Atwood v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Lubbock County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-04-0313-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
MAY 31, 2005
______________________________
SHERYL D. ATWOOD,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO.2 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2002-478,973; HON. DRUE FARMER, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Appellant, Sheryl D. Atwood, appeals from an order modifying the terms of her
community supervision or probation. The State had moved to revoke her probation, but
rather than do so, the trial court allowed her to remain on probation after modifying the
conditions attached to it. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.1
1
We have authority to address our own jurisdiction sua sponte. V arga s v. State, 109 S.W.3d 26,
29 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 2003, no pet.).
Subject to an exception not applicable here,2 orders modifying the terms and
conditions of probation are not subject to appeal. Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1977); Castillo v. State, No. 13-03-416-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 9472 (Tex.
App.–Corpus Christi, November 6, 2003, no pet.) (not designated for publication);
Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224, 225 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d);
Elizondo v. State, 966 S.W.2d 671, 672 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, no pet.); Eaden v.
State, 901 S.W.2d 535, 537 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1995, no pet.). Therefore, we have no
jurisdiction to consider the issue before us.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2
It has been held that a defendant may complain of a probation modification order when violation
of that order form ed the ba sis of a subseq uen t revocation . Elizondo v. State, 966 S.W.2d 671, 672 (Tex.
App. –San Anton io 1998, no. pet.).
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
