COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00085-CR
JERRY PAUL LUNDGREN APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF WISE COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. CR-66896
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ON REMAND
----------
This appeal is before us after a remand from the court of criminal appeals. See Tex. R. App. 78.1(d). On original submission, we held that Appellant’s violations of his community-supervision terms, which occurred after his negotiated sentence of community supervision was imposed but before Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law, subjected him
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
to revocation. We concluded that the trial court, therefore, did not err by denying Appellant’s motion to quash the State’s motion to revoke his community supervision based on the alleged violation occurring before his community-supervision judgment became final. Lundgren v. State, 417 S.W.3d 11, 22 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013).
The court of criminal appeals held, however, that Appellant’s timely and effective filing of a motion for new trial retroactively tolled the commencement of his community supervision; therefore, the terms of Appellant’s community supervision were not in effect one week after Appellant pleaded guilty to DWI when Appellant was again arrested for DWI but before Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law. Lundgren v. State, No. PD-1322-13, 2014 WL 2865806, at *5–6 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014). As a result, the trial court should have granted Appellant’s motion to quash the State’s motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. Id. at *6. The court of criminal appeals reversed our prior judgment and remanded to this court “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” Id.; see Tex. R. App. P. 78.1(d).
Based on the court of criminal appeals’ reasoning, we hold that the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motion to quash because the judgment upon which the community supervision was based was not a final judgment at the time the alleged violations occurred. We sustain Appellant’s first issue, reverse the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to quash, and order the motion to *3 revoke community supervision dismissed. We need not address Appellant’s other issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; Lundgren, 2014 WL 2865806, at *6.
/s/ Lee Gabriel
LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 21, 2014