                            NUMBER 13-19-00255-CR

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

AMANDA LEIGH HILTZMAN,                                                      Appellant,

                                           v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 36th District Court
                   of Aransas County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

             Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

      Appellant, Amanda Leigh Hiltzamn, attempts to appeal from an order modifying

the terms of her community supervision. We dismiss the appeal.

      On January 2, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on a motion to revoke appellant’s

community supervision. The trial court ordered the term of community supervision to be

extended for a period of one additional year through July 10, 2021 and imposed additional

requirements. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 3, 2019.
       The right to appeal is conferred by the legislature, and a party may appeal only

that which the legislature has authorized. Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 278 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1993). A defendant has a right to appeal when his community supervision is

revoked and he is adjudicated guilty and sentenced. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

42.12, § 23(b). To the contrary, there is no statutory basis for an appeal of an order

modifying a term or condition of probation. See Christopher v. State, 7 S.W.3d 224, 225

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). Case law has long held that an order

modifying or refusing to modify probation is not subject to appeal. See Basaldua v.

State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Perez v. State, 938 S.W.2d 761, 762-63

(Tex. App.—Austin 1997, pet. ref’d); Eaden v. State 901 S.W.2d 535, 536 (Tex. App.—El

Paso 1995, no pet.).

       In this case, the record does not contain any order revoking Hiltzman’s community

supervision, adjudicating her guilt, or assessing a jail or prison sentence. The trial court’s

order of January 2, 2019 modified the terms of community service. Even if we had

jurisdiction, appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely.

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, is of the

opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the

appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a).




                                              2
                                   LETICIA HINOJOSA
                                   Justice
Do not publish.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the
27th day of June, 2019.




                               3
