Charles George Gould v. State

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-09-00109-CR ____________________ CHARLES GEORGE GOULD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR27068 MEMORANDUM OPINION On April 2, 2009, we notified the parties that our jurisdiction was not apparent from the notice of appeal, and notified them that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless we received a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. The appellant filed a response. The notice of appeal seeks to appeal the trial court's order denying a motion to place Gould on community supervision after he had begun serving his sentence in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 6 (Vernon). We do not have jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for "shock" community supervision. See Houlihan v. State, 579 S.W.2d 213, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Zepeda v. State, 993 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. ref'd). The cases cited by the appellant either concern an appeal by the State from an order granting a motion for shock probation, or follow the revocation of shock probation after it was granted by the trial court. See, e.g., King v. State, 942 S.W.2d 667, 668 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1997, pet. ref'd) (appeal following revocation); State v. Lima, 825 S.W.2d 733, 734 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (state's appeal from order placing defendant on shock probation). Accordingly, we hold the order from which appellant seeks to appeal is not appealable. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. APPEAL DISMISSED. __________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Opinion Delivered June 10, 2009 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ