Amanda Gonzales v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-25-00601-CR

Amanda GONZALES,
Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,
Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2023-CR-4172
Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
H. Todd McCray, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 15, 2025

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community

supervision on June 14, 2023. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in connection with this case on

September 3, 2025. On September 22, 2025, we received the clerk’s record. The clerk’s record

shows the trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision in

accordance with the plea bargain and signed a certification stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and

the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See
04-25-00601-CR

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). On April 17, 2025, the trial court signed an “Order Amending

Conditions of Community Supervision.”

“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised

by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to

appeal; or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” Id. We must dismiss

an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made

part of the record.” Id. R. 25.2(d). Here, the clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by

the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by

appellant. It also includes a plea bargain agreement showing appellant waived her Rule 25.2(a)(2)

appeal rights, explaining: “I understand that upon my plea of . . . nolo contendere, . . . my right to

appeal will be limited to only: (1) those matters . . . raised by written motion filed and ruled on

before trial, or (2) other matters on which the trial court gives me permission to appeal.” It further

provides: “However, as part of my plea-bargain agreement in this case, I knowingly and

voluntarily waive my right to appeal under (1) and (2) in exchange for the prosecutor’s

recommendation, provided that the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed our

agreement.”

The clerk’s record shows the trial court did not give appellant permission to appeal and

imposed appellant’s punishment consistent with the plea bargain. Thus, the trial court’s

certification appears to accurately reflect this is a plea-bargain case, and appellant does not have a

right to appeal. See id. R. 25.2; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding

court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is

accurate).

-2-
04-25-00601-CR

Further, to the extent appellant seeks to appeal the order amending the conditions of her

community supervision, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order

altering or modifying the conditions of community supervision. See Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d

708, 710-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977);

Quaglia v. State, 906 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no pet.).

Lastly, it appears appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely. The trial court rendered the order

modifying the conditions of appellant’s deferred adjudication community supervision on April 17,

2025. Because a motion for new trial was not filed, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on May

19, 2025. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal

was due on June 2, 2025. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. The record reflects appellant did not file her notice

of appeal until September 3, 2025, and appellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file

her notice of appeal. “A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of this

Court.” Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d 39, 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Because appellant did not

timely file a notice of appeal, it appears that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

We, therefore, ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction based on her untimely notice of appeal and her attempt to appeal an order

amending the conditions of her community supervision. We admonished appellant that even if she

was able to show that her notice of appeal was timely filed and we have jurisdiction over this

appeal, this appeal would nevertheless be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

25.2(d) unless an amended certification showing she has the right to appeal was made part of the

appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July

2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).

-3-
04-25-00601-CR

On October 7, 2025, appellant’s counsel responded, explaining there were “no flaws with

[the court’s] conclusions. This attempted appeal either targets an order that is unappealable, is

untimely, or has been pursued without the requisite trial court certification. Appellate counsel thus

concedes this Court has little choice but to dismiss this attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction,”

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

-4-