Zoila Freire v. The State of Texas Appeal from 399th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00291-CR Zoila FREIRE, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR2613 Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 29, 2019 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant Zoila Freire pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, penalty group 1, less than one gram. On September 28, 2018, Appellant’s adjudication of guilt was deferred, and Appellant was placed on community supervision. On April 3, 2019, the trial court amended Appellant’s community supervision conditions. Appellant now seeks to appeal from the trial court’s April 3, 2019 order, which Appellant signed on March 29, 2019, modifying the conditions of Appellant’s deferred adjudication. 04-19-00291-CR On May 9, 2019, we advised Appellant that “an order modifying the terms or conditions of deferred adjudication is not in itself appealable.” See Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). We ordered Appellant to show cause in writing by May 24, 2019, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Davis, 195 S.W.3d at 711. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel timely filed a response. Counsel advised the court that “Appellant is requesting that the trial court amend the conditions of probation” based on Appellant’s claims that the conditions violate her constitutional rights, and counsel asks this court not to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s response does not cure the jurisdictional defect: “an order modifying the terms or conditions of deferred adjudication is not in itself appealable.” See Davis, 195 S.W.3d at 711; Basaldua, 558 S.W.2d at 5. Appellant’s response fails to show how this court has jurisdiction in this appeal. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Davis, 195 S.W.3d at 711. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.
