Wilson v. State

Full title: BEVY LEE WILSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi — Edinburg

Date published: Aug 30, 2007

No. 13-05-280-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2007)

Opinion

No. 13-05-280-CR

Delivered: August 30, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

On appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Wittig¹.

1 Retired Justice Don Wittig assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to section 74.003 of the government code. See Tex. Gov't. Code Ann. § 74.003 (Vernon 2005).

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by DON WITTIG, Justice.

Appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault on September 6, 2002. The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for three years, and imposed a suspended fine of $500.00. On February 10, 2003, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty of the offense, and imposed a sentence of twenty years' confinement in prison. This confinement was ordered to run concurrently with appellant's sentence for murder as discussed in a companion appeal, Wilson v. State, No. 13-05-0279-CR, handed down this same date. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. At the hearing on the motion to revoke, appellant pled "not true." The trial court took judicial notice of the evidence presented in the companion murder case. Appellant presented no evidence but argued, inter alia, that it would be unfortunate if the companion capital murder case were overturned after he was adjudicated. Consistent with this argument, appellant filed a single brief on both the companion capital murder case and this appeal of the adjudication. In his brief, he attacked four aspects of the companion murder case.

I. Jurisdiction

In appellant's brief in this cause, he raises no issues concerning either the conviction or sentence imposed. Appellant apparently seeks to avoid the jurisdictional limitations for the appeal of his adjudication. As the State properly argues, we do not have jurisdiction to consider claims relating to the trial court's determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). With regard to a trial court's adjudication of guilt, article 42.12, section 5(b) provides: "No appeal may be taken from this determination." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon 2006). When an appeal arises from a claim of purported error in the adjudication of guilt determination, a court of appeals should dismiss that claim. Hogans v. State, 176 S.W.3d 829, 832 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). While we recognize that an appellant sentenced under a guilty plea agreement may appeal certain limited aspects of an adjudication proceeding, appellant raises no such issues here. Id. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.