Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Arturo Salinas, Jr. pleaded guilty to felony theft with two or more previous convictions and evading arrest or detention with a previous conviction. He also pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs alleged in each indictment.
After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed eight years in prison for each offense, with the sentences running concurrently. In both appeals, Salinas argued that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing prison terms instead of suspending the sentences and placing him on community supervision.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed both judgments. The court explained that community supervision is a privilege rather than a right and that a trial court’s decision whether to grant it is wholly discretionary and nonreviewable.
Salinas compared his case to Jackson v. State, which found an abuse of discretion under the limited circumstances of a punishment proceeding where the trial court had nothing on which to base its decision. The court stated that Jackson and Salinas’s case were not the same. Because the decision not to grant community supervision was not reviewable, the court overruled Salinas’s sole issue in each appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant has no right to receive community supervision under Texas law.
- A trial court’s decision whether to grant community supervision is wholly discretionary and nonreviewable.
- The court rejected Salinas’s reliance on Jackson v. State and affirmed his concurrent eight-year prison sentences.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the narrow scope of appellate review when a defendant challenges only a trial court’s refusal to grant community supervision. Characterizing that refusal as an abuse of discretion does not make the discretionary decision reviewable.