Robert Spencer Wilson v. State ( 2000 )

NUMBER 13-99-495-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

ROBERT WILSON,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Hinojosa, Chavez and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Chavez

On September 27, 1993, Robert Spencer Wilson pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain with the State in exchange for ten years deferred adjudication, a $1000 fine, and restitution of $140. The court accepted Wilson's plea and agreed to the plea bargain, sentencing him as set out above, with the exception that no restitution was included in the judgment.

The State moved to revoke probation, asserting that Wilson had violated the conditions of his probation by committing the additional offense of evading arrest, and by failing to report to his probation officer on four occasions, failing to pay fines and court costs, and testing positive for marijuana usage. On June 30, 1999, Wilson pled true to failing to report to his probation officer on two occasions, failing to pay fines and court costs, and true to use of a controlled substance. The court revoked probation, and imposed a fifteen and one half year sentence and $90 in restitution for court costs. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal.

As required by Anders v. California, the appellant's counsel has certified in the brief she provided that the appellant's appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel has sent a copy of both her brief and her motion to withdraw to the appellant. Id. She has also spoken to him twice and given written notice twice to him regarding both her brief and her motion to withdraw. Id.

The appellant has not provided a pro se brief. No appeal is possible from any issue coming out of his 1993 deferred adjudication. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a direct appeal on any issue that Wilson could raise regarding the trial court's decision to adjudicate his guilt. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 1999).⁽¹⁾ Our independent review of the trial court's revocation of the appellant's probation shows no error by the lower court. Accordingly, appellant's appeal has no merit.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and grant appellant's attorney's motion to withdraw. We also order appellant's attorney to notify the appellant of the disposition of his appeal and of his right to pro se discretionary review.

MELCHOR CHAVEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 4^th day of May, 2000.

1. This section of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides:

On violation of a condition of probation imposed under subsection (a) of this section, the defendant may be arrested and detained as provided in section 24 of this Article. The defendant is entitled to a hearing limited to the determination by the court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. No appeal may be taken from this determination. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 1999).