Full Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00202-CR 10-25-00203-CR Arturo Salinas, Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On appeal from the 272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas Judge John L. Brick, presiding Trial Court Cause Nos. 23-01125-CRF-272; 23-012692-CRF-272 JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Arturo Salinas, Jr. pled guilty to the felony offenses of theft with two or more previous convictions and evading arrest or detention with a previous conviction and pled true to the enhancement paragraphs alleged in each indictment. After a sentencing hearing to the court, Salinas was sentenced to eight years in prison for each offense, running concurrently. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. In the same sole issue for each appeal, Salinas argues the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Salinas to prison rather than suspending his sentence and placing him on community supervision. The granting of community supervision is a privilege, not a right. Dansby v. State, 448 S.W.3d 441, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). As such, the trial court's decision whether to grant community supervision is “wholly discretionary and nonreviewable.” Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Wynn v. State, No. 10-23-00192-CR, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 8257, at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 27, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Salinas likens the trial court’s decision not to grant community supervision to the trial court’s punishment assessment in Jackson v. State, where, under the limited facts of that case and over timely objection, the procedure used in the trial court’s punishment decision “in which there was no evidence of the offense, no information about the defendant, no punishment evidence, no plea bargain; in short, nothing at all upon which the punishment decision could have been based,” was held to be an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); see Shelburg v. State, No. 10-09-00172-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3228, at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco Apr. 27, Salinas v. State Page 2 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Jackson and this case are not the same. Accordingly, because the trial court’s decision is not reviewable, Salinas’s sole issue in each appeal is overruled, and the trial court’s judgments are affirmed. LEE HARRIS Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: September 10, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish CR25 Salinas v. State Page 3