Karyn Lynn Hall v. the State of Texas

DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 27, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00213-CR
No. 05-24-00214-CR

KARYN LYNN HALL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F22-12347, F23-12487

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Smith
Opinion by Justice Smith
Karyn Lynn Hall appeals the trial court’s orders of January 11, 2024, which

denied the State’s motion to revoke community supervision or proceed with an

adjudication of guilt, modified the conditions of community supervision, and

extended the term of community supervision. The orders were not appealable

orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

In cause number F22-12347, appellant was indicted for possession on

September 8, 2022, of less than one gram of methamphetamine. In cause number

F23-12487, appellant was charged by information with possession on September 19,
2023, of less than one gram of methamphetamine. On November 1, 2023, appellant

pleaded guilty to both offenses. The trial court deferred adjudication of appellant’s

guilt and placed her on community supervision for two years. The conditions of

community supervision included a requirement that appellant participate in

treatment at the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center Program Lancaster.

Appellant did not file a notice of appeal applicable to these orders.

On November 30, 2023, the State filed in each case a motion to revoke

community supervision or proceed with an adjudication of guilt. The State alleged

appellant failed to comply with the conditions of community supervision because

she failed to participate in treatment at the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center

Program Lancaster.

On January 11, 2024, appellant pleaded true to the State’s motions to revoke

or adjudicate. The trial court denied the State’s motions, added two new conditions

of community supervision, and extended the term of community supervision by three

months.

On February 2, 2024, appellant, pro se, filed a document styled “Motion to

Appeal Guilty Plea” stating, “I, Karyn Hall, do hereby appeal my guilty plea on date

1/11/24 for ineffective counsel.”

The records show appellant’s “guilty plea on date 1/11/24” was in each case

a plea of true to the State’s motion to revoke or adjudicate. The trial court’s orders

based on the pleas were the denial of the State’s motions to revoke or adjudicate, the

–2–
extension of the term of community supervision, and the modification of the terms

of community supervision. The court of criminal appeals has held that none of these

are appealable orders. 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). Without an

appealable order, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider these appeals. Abbott v.

State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Nikrasch v. State, 698 S.W.2d

443, 450 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no pet.).

We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

/Craig Smith/
CRAIG SMITH
Do Not Publish JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

240213F.U05

–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

KARYN LYNN HALL, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District
Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-24-00213-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F22-12347.
Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Partida-Kipness and Nowell
participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for
want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 27th day of March 2024.

–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

KARYN LYNN HALL, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District
Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-24-00214-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F23-12487.
Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Partida-Kipness and Nowell
participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for
want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 27th day of March 2024.

–5–