William K. Hartsfield v. State ( 2002 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09-02-185 CR ____________________

WILLIAM K. HARTSFIELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 252^nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 82544

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant William K. Hartsfield pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of less than one gram. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(b) (Vernon Supp. 2002). On January 14, 2002, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Hartsfield on community supervision for five years. Approximately four hours later, Hartsfield was arrested for public intoxication. The State filed a "Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation" the next day. Subsequently, the trial court held a hearing on the State's motion, revoked appellant's community supervision, and sentenced him to two years in the state jail division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. With four points of error, Hartsfield appeals to this court.

We summarize appellant's points of error as follows:

Point of Error One:

Hartsfield's trial attorney was ineffective in allowing Hartsfield's "uncounseled plea" of "no contest" to public intoxication to result in the revocation of probation in the instant case.

Point of Error Two:

Hartsfield's trial attorney was ineffective at the hearing on the "State's Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation" because the attorney did not seek to have the medical records -- already in the court's file -- entered into evidence; he did not present expert testimony on Hartsfield's prescribed medications' side effects; he did not appeal from the no contest plea on the public intoxication charge; he did not seek to keep the public intoxication out of evidence; and he did not secure an expert.

Points of Error Three and Four:

Hartsfield did not receive fair warning of the terms of probation; further, the trial court erred by failing to make specific findings on the ground for revocation.

Hartsfield cannot now raise error relating to the original plea proceeding in this case, or in some other case, nor may he appeal the trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b)(Vernon Supp. 2002); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). As the Court of Criminal Appeals has stated, "[W]e have tried to make clear that, given the plain meaning of Article 42.12, § 5(b), an appellant whose deferred adjudication probation has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process." Connolly, 983 S.W.2d at 741. Hartsfield's points of error all relate in one way or another to the trial court's determination to adjudicate guilt, not to proceedings after adjudication of guilt, such as assessment of punishment or pronouncement of sentence. See art. 42.12, § 5(b); Perinon v. State, 54 S.W.3d 848,849 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). Consequently, we overrule each point of error. The conviction is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

DAVID B. GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on August 7, 2002

Delivered on August 14, 2002

Do Not Publish

Before Walker, C.J., Burgess, and Gaultney, JJ.