Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

Kenisha Sharron Simms v. the State of Texas

Docket 04-26-00090-CR

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealDismissed
Filed
Jurisdiction
Texas
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
Type
Lead Opinion
Disposition
Dismissed
Docket
04-26-00090-CR

Appeal from an order modifying the conditions of deferred community supervision following a plea-bargain in a criminal case

Summary

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Kenisha Sharron Simms's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Simms had been placed on deferred community supervision after a plea; the State later moved to adjudicate guilt, and the trial court modified the supervision conditions. The appellate court held that appeals from modifications to deferred adjudication supervision are not authorized by the legislature, cited controlling precedent, gave Simms an opportunity to show cause, received no response, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a trial court order modifying the terms of deferred adjudication community supervision
  • Whether modification of deferred adjudication terms constitutes an appealable order under Texas law

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on Texas precedent holding that appeals from modifications of deferred adjudication supervision are not authorized by the legislature. The panel treated modification of deferred adjudication terms as part of the nonappealable decision whether to adjudicate guilt, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. Because the appellant did not respond to the court's show-cause order, dismissal followed.

Authorities Cited

  • Quaglia v. State906 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no pet.)

Parties

Appellant
Kenisha Sharron Simms
Appellee
The State of Texas
Judge
Kristina Escalona

Key Dates

Deferred community supervision entered
2024-05-01
State filed motion to adjudicate guilt
2024-08-22
Trial court signed order modifying supervision
2025-11-05
Appellant filed notice of appeal
2026-01-03
Decision filed
2026-04-08

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Consult criminal defense counsel

    Discuss whether any post-judgment trial-court remedies exist (e.g., motion to reconsider or other relief) and evaluate collateral remedies if appropriate.

  2. 2

    Review trial-court record and orders

    Have counsel examine the modification order and the State's motion to determine whether procedural defects or other grounds might support relief in the trial court.

  3. 3

    Consider petitioning higher court only if jurisdictional basis found

    If counsel identifies a novel jurisdictional claim or constitutional issue, consider seeking further review, but recognize the appellate court found no statutory basis for the appeal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?
The court dismissed the appeal because it concluded it has no authority to hear appeals from modifications to deferred adjudication supervision orders.
Who is affected by this decision?
The appellant, Kenisha Simms, is affected because her attempt to appeal the modification of her deferred supervision was dismissed; other defendants in Texas seeking to appeal similar modifications are likewise limited by this precedent.
What happens next for the appellant?
Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the trial court's modified supervision order remains in effect; the appellant may need to pursue other available remedies in the trial court if any exist.
Can this dismissal be appealed further?
An appeal from this dismissal would generally require a jurisdictional basis; the opinion cites established precedent that such appeals are not authorized, so further appeal options are likely limited and would require advice from counsel.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          No. 04-26-00090-CR

                                       Kenisha Sharron SIMMS,
                                              Appellant

                                                    v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                      From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                    Trial Court No. 2024CR1287
                            Honorable Kristina Escalona, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:          Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
                  H. Todd McCray, Justice
                  Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2026

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

           The clerk’s record has been filed in this appeal. It reflects that on May 1, 2024, appellant

was placed on deferred community supervision in accordance with her plea-bargain agreement.

On August 22, 2024, the State filed motion to enter adjudication of guilt and revoke community

supervision. On November 5, 2025, the trial court signed an order modifying the conditions of

appellant’s community supervision. On January 3, 2026, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.
                                                                                    04-26-00090-CR


        “[A]ppeals from the modification of terms of deferred adjudication, like appeals from the

modification of terms of probation, are not authorized by the legislature.” Quaglia v. State, 906

S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no pet.). “If anything, the decision to modify the

appellant’s deferred adjudication instead of proceeding with adjudication was part of the decision

whether to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, for which appeal is expressly forbidden.” Id.

Thus, it appears that we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.

        We therefore ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond. We therefore dismiss this appeal for

lack of jurisdiction.


                                                  PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH




                                                -2-