What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the appeal because it lacks authority to hear a direct appeal of an order that changes the conditions of community supervision.

Who is affected by this decision?

The appellant, Samantha Vargas, is affected because her attempt to appeal the modification to her supervision was dismissed; similarly, future attempts to directly appeal such modifications are constrained by the same rule.

What happens next for the appellant?

Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the trial court's modification remains in effect unless the appellant pursues another appropriate remedy in the trial court or a remedy authorized by statute.

Can this dismissal be appealed further?

The appellate court's dismissal is itself a final action on this appeal; further review would depend on available statutory procedures and whether any other appellate avenue exists, but the opinion cites precedent that generally bars direct appeals of supervision modifications.

Samantha Ann Marie Vargas v. the State of Texas

Docket 04-25-00800-CR

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

Criminal AppealDismissed

Filed: Apr 8, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 04-25-00800-CR

Direct appeal from an order altering the conditions of community supervision (trial court order dated December 8, 2025).

Summary

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Samantha Ann Marie Vargas's appeal challenging a December 8, 2025 order that modified her community supervision to include a 30-day jail sanction (with credit for time served). The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an order that alters conditions of community supervision, relying on controlling precedent. The panel ordered dismissal after Vargas failed to show a basis for continuing the appeal when asked to show cause.

Issue Decided

Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an order modifying the conditions of community supervision.

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on controlling precedent establishing that there is no statutory authority for a direct appeal from an order modifying community supervision conditions. Because existing Texas case law (e.g., Davis v. State) bars direct appeals of supervision-condition modifications, the appellant's response to the show-cause order did not identify any jurisdictional basis to continue the appeal. That lack of jurisdiction required dismissal.

Authorities Cited

Davis v. State195 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)
Ralston v. StateNo. 03-20-00278-CR, 2020 WL 4462316 (Tex. App.—Austin July 17, 2020, no pet.)

Parties

Appellant: Samantha Ann Marie Vargas
Appellee: The State of Texas
Judge: Kelley Kimble
Judge: Rebeca C. Martinez
Judge: Irene Rios
Judge: Lori I. Valenzuela

Key Dates

trial_court_order_date: 2025-12-08
show_cause_order_date: 2026-02-24
appellate_decision_date: 2026-04-08

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult criminal defense counsel
Discuss with your lawyer whether there is an alternative procedural route to challenge the modification, such as filing a motion in the trial court or seeking any statutory post-conviction relief.
2
Consider trial-court remedies
If appropriate, pursue a timely motion in the trial court to rescind or modify the supervision change or to seek other relief permitted under Texas law.
3
Evaluate preservation of appellate issues
Work with counsel to identify whether any jurisdictional or constitutional claims exist that might support a different appellate path or federal habeas review if state remedies are exhausted.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed the appeal because it lacks authority to hear a direct appeal of an order that changes the conditions of community supervision.
Who is affected by this decision?: The appellant, Samantha Vargas, is affected because her attempt to appeal the modification to her supervision was dismissed; similarly, future attempts to directly appeal such modifications are constrained by the same rule.
What happens next for the appellant?: Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the trial court's modification remains in effect unless the appellant pursues another appropriate remedy in the trial court or a remedy authorized by statute.
Can this dismissal be appealed further?: The appellate court's dismissal is itself a final action on this appeal; further review would depend on available statutory procedures and whether any other appellate avenue exists, but the opinion cites precedent that generally bars direct appeals of supervision modifications.

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. 04-25-00800-CR

Samantha Ann Marie VARGAS,
Appellant

The State of TEXAS,
Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2021-07-14275-CR
Honorable Kelley Kimble, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2026

DISMISSED

Appellant attempts to appeal from an order signed on December 8, 2025, altering her terms

of community supervision, to include serving “a thirty day (30) jail sanction with credit for time

served of 30 days.” On February 24, 2026, we ordered Appellant to show cause why this appeal

should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant’s response does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. This court does not

have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order altering or modifying community supervision
04-25-00800-CR

conditions. Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“There is no legislative

authority for entertaining a direct appeal from an order modifying the conditions of community

supervision.”); Ralston v. State, No. 03-20-00278-CR, 2020 WL 4462316 (Tex. App.—Austin

July 17, 2020, no pet.).

Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-