Vesha Mikeona Shaw v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________

No. 02-25-00393-CR
___________________________

VESHA MIKEONA SHAW, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 2
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1863017

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 13, 2025, the trial court deferred adjudication of Appellant Vesha

Mikeona Shaw’s theft offense. Appellant did not appeal from the order of

adjudication.

On October 1, 2025, Appellant filed a “Motion for Modification of Bill of

Costs.” The trial court denied the motion, and Appellant now attempts to appeal

from that order.

“[I]n Texas, appeals by either the State or the defendant in a criminal case are

permitted only when they are specifically authorized by statute.” State ex rel. Lykos v.

Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding). “The standard

for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but

whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see also Bryant v. State, 642 S.W.3d 847, 850 (Tex. App.—Waco

2021, no pet.) (op. on remand) (“Our reading of [various cases] and certain provisions

of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the collection of court costs[] lead

us to conclude that we are authorized on direct appeal to order a modification of a bill of

costs independent of finding an error in the trial court’s judgment.” (emphasis

added)); cf. Weaver v. State, No. 12-20-00018-CR, 2020 WL 975355, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Tyler Feb. 28, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(“We have not located any rule or statutory or constitutional provision that would

2
authorize [a]ppellant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief from

attorney’s fees and costs.”).

We notified Appellant by letter of our jurisdiction concern, stating that the trial

court’s Order on Defendant’s Motion for Modification signed on October 3, 2025,

did not appear to be a judgment of conviction or an order made appealable by statute.

We permitted Appellant ten days to respond showing grounds for continuing the

appeal and warned that the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The

deadline has elapsed, and Appellant did not file a response.

Because Appellant’s appeal is not specifically authorized by law, we dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); cf. Weaver 2020 WL

975355, at *2.

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: December 18, 2025

3