Opinion
Nos. 05-04-01244-CR, 05-04-01245-CR
Opinion issued August 3, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P.47.
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F94-52777-NP, F94-52778-NP. Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, LANG, and MAZZANT.
OPINION
In these cases, Richard Stanley Beall a/k/a Richard Stanley Beal waived a jury trial and entered negotiated nolo contendere pleas to two aggravated assaults on public servants. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreements, the trial court originally deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant on ten years' probation in each case. Later, the State moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the terms of his probation. The trial court found the allegations true and adjudicated appellant guilty in each case. In four points of error, appellant now contends he is entitled to a new trial in each case because the reporter's record of the original plea hearing was lost or destroyed and because the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. We affirm the trial court's judgments. In his first two points of error, appellant contends that he is entitled to new trials because the reporter's record of the original plea hearing was lost or destroyed. Pat Randall, the court reporter who recorded the hearing, has died. We adopted the trial court's finding that the record is lost or destroyed and the parties cannot agree on a substitute record. Appellant contends the missing record is vital to his appeals. We disagree. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication probation must appeal issues relating to the original plea hearing when the deferred adjudication is first imposed. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Appellant cannot now appeal any issues related to the original deferred adjudication proceeding. See Daniels v. State, 30 S.W.3d 407, 408 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Thus, the reporter's record from the original plea hearing is not necessary for the resolution of his appeals. See Tex.R.App.P. 34.6(f). We overrule appellant's first and second points of error. In his third and fourth points of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in adjudicating him guilty in each case because the State failed to prove he had violated the terms of his probation. Appellant's complaints attack the trial court's determination to adjudicate guilt. Such a 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). We dismiss appellant's third and fourth point of error for want of jurisdiction. We affirm the trial court's judgments.