Opinion
Nos. 05-05-00368-CR, 05-05-00369-CR, 05-05-00370-CR
Opinion Filed October 17, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court, Rockwall County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 2-03-279, 2-03-280, 2-03-451. Dismiss.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, LANG-MIERS, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Thomas Tello entered negotiated guilty pleas to two indecency with a child offenses and one possession of child pornography offense. Pursuant to the plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant on five years' community supervision in each case. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. Following a hearing, the trial judge adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment in each case. Appellant, who is representing himself and is not indigent, did not arrange to pay for the clerk's records and, thus, no clerk's records have been filed in these appeals. Pursuant to the rules of appellate procedure, the appeals are subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See Tex.R.App.P. 37.3(b). Nevertheless, both appellant and the State filed briefs. Therefore, in the interests of justice, we will not dismiss the appeals for want of prosecution. At the outset we note appellant filed a brief that raises multifarious issues. Appellant, as a pro se litigant, is not entitled to any special treatment and is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys. See Kindley v. State, 879 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.). Failure to properly brief the complaints leaves us without anything to review. See id. Furthermore, to the best we can construe appellant's complaints, they attack the original plea proceedings and the adjudication proceedings. To the extent appellant challenges the original plea proceedings and the conditions of his community supervision, his complaints are untimely. See Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). And to the extent appellant challenges the trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt, the challenge is not permitted.See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Because there are no issues before us over which we have jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.
No clerk's records were filed in these cases. We obtained the information regarding the trial court proceedings from the clerk's records filed in appellant's appeals from the orders revoking his appeal bonds. See Ex parte Tello, No. 05-05-00814-CR (Tex.App.-Dallas, Aug. 23, 2005, no pet. h.) (not designated for publication).
In his complaints, appellant asserts the judgment is void. His argument, however, centers on the condition of community supervision and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the alleged violation. These complaints do not raise the void judgment exception set out in Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 673 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).