ROBERT KERWIN v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 105th District Court of Kleberg County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-09-00097-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ROBERT KERWIN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez Appellant, Robert Kerwin, appeals from an order modifying his community supervision to require his attendance at a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFPF). We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. I. BACKGROUND The State filed a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision and to adjudicate guilt. Appellant pleaded "true" to all counts except 5, 6, and 10. After accepting appellant's pleas of "true" and "not true," the trial court heard evidence from the State and appellant and listened to arguments and recommendations of counsel. The State withdrew counts 5, 6, and 10, and the trial court found the remaining allegations true. However, rather than adjudicating guilt, the trial court continued appellant on community supervision, and as an additional term and condition of appellant's community supervision, ordered appellant to attend a SAFPF. Appellant perfected his appeal from this order, and his counsel filed an Anders brief with this Court. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). II. APPELLATE JURISDICTION This is a direct appeal from an order modifying the conditions of appellant's supervision. There is no legislative authority, however, for entertaining such an appeal. See Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Lovill v. State, 287 S.W.3d 65, 74 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2008, pet. granted) (dismissing Lovill's direct appeal from the trial court's order modifying her probation for want of jurisdiction and reversing and remanding the same order denying her petition for writ of habeas corpus for which the court of criminal appeals has granted petition). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction over appellant's direct appeal from the trial court's order modifying the conditions of his community supervision. See Davis, 195 S.W.3d at 710; Basaldua, 558 S.W.2d at 5; Lovill, 287 S.W.3d at 74. 2 III. CONCLUSION We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.1 Because we have no jurisdiction to consider the appeal, counsel's motion to withdraw that was previously carried with the case is also dismissed for want of jurisdiction. NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ Justice Do not publish. TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 10th day of December, 2009. 1 Appellant has characterized this proceeding as a direct appeal. He did not file an application for writ of habeas corpus with the trial court seeking relief from the m odified com m unity supervision order. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R O C . A N N . art. 11.072 (Vernon 2005) (establishing procedures in a writ of habeas corpus in a felony or m isdem eanor case where the applicant seeks relief from an order ordering com m unity supervision); see also Lovill v. State, 287 S.W .3d 65, 74 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2008, pet. granted). Furtherm ore, appellant does not request, in the alternative, that this Court construe the trial court proceeding from which he appeals as a habeas corpus proceeding, and based on the record and briefing before us, we choose not to do so. See Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W .2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim . App. 1977). 3
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.
