Elias Martinez III v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed April 10, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________

No. 11-24-00277-CR
___________

ELIAS MARTINEZ III, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 20114B

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Elias Martinez III pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, a
second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(1) (West Supp. 2024).
On June 14, 2017, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement between Martinez and
the State, the trial court placed Martinez on deferred adjudication community
supervision for a period of ten years. Martinez filed a motion on September 27, 2024
asking the trial court to terminate his community supervision prior to the expiration
of ten years. The trial court denied Martinez’s motion, and he filed a notice of appeal
in this court. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, we notified Martinez by letter
dated October 22, 2024 that it appeared that the order he was attempting to appeal
was not appealable. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a). In the same letter, we informed
Martinez that this appeal would be dismissed unless he filed a response showing
grounds to continue the appeal. Martinez filed several documents, including an
amended notice of appeal in which he asserts that his motion was denied “under
incorrect and unfair grounds.” None of the documents filed show grounds to
continue this appeal.
Appellate jurisdiction must be expressly conferred by statute. Ex parte
Sinclair, 693 S.W.3d 346, 353–54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024) (citing TEX. CONST. art. V
§ 6). Article 44.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure gives criminal
defendants the right to appeal a judgment of guilt—with the exception of certain plea
bargain cases—or “other appealable order,” as authorized by the legislature. TEX. R.
APP. P. 25.2; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2018); see also Abbott v.
State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Such “other appealable
orders” include orders that: dismiss the indictment, grant a new trial, suppress
evidence, deny habeas relief, set bail while on appeal, enter a nunc pro tunc
judgment, grant shock probation, and deny a motion for post-conviction DNA
testing. See Smith v. State, 559 S.W.3d 527, 534–35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). By
contrast, “an order modifying the terms or conditions of deferred adjudication is not
in itself appealable.” Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Nor is there legislative authority conferring jurisdiction on this court to entertain a
direct appeal from an order granting or denying a motion for early termination of
deferred adjudication. See Powell v. State, No. 05-01-01359-CR, 2002 WL 318318,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 1, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction over Martinez’s appeal of the
2
trial court’s order denying his motion for early termination of his deferred
adjudication.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

April 10, 2025
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3