Henderson, Jeremy v. State ( 2005 )


Menu:
  • Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 3, 2005

    Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 3, 2005.

     

    In The

     

    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

    ____________

     

    NO. 14-04-00948-CR

    ____________

     

    JEREMY HENDERSON, Appellant

     

    V.

     

    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

     

      

     

    On Appeal from the 180nd District Court

    Harris County, Texas

    Trial Court Cause No. 980,825

     

      

     

    M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

    Appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault pursuant to a plea bargain on June 3, 2004.  The trial judge deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for four years.  The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. After a hearing, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at confinement for four years and a $500 fine.  Appellant filed a timely general notice of appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt.


    On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the State=s evidence that he violated a term of his deferred adjudication community supervision. 

    Given the plain meaning of Article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appellant whose deferred adjudication probation has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process.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 v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 42.12 ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004).  Appellant may only raise issues that occur after adjudication of guilt and assessment of punishment.  See Ditto v. State, 988 S.W.2d 236, 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 

    Nor may we now consider any complaint concerning the original plea because those had to be raised when deferred adjudication community supervision was first imposed.  Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661‑62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

     

    PER CURIAM

     

    Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 3, 2005.

    Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman.

    Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).       

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-04-00948-CR

Filed Date: 2/3/2005

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/15/2015