Opinion
No. 14-04-00901-CR
Memorandum Opinion filed July 21, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 351st District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 874,213. Dismissed.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices FOWLER and FROST.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a guilty plea to burglary of a habitation on May 1, 2001. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate appellant's guilt, alleging violation of the terms of appellant's community supervision order. On August 25, 2004, appellant entered a plea of true to some of the alleged violations. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated appellant's guilt, and on August 25, 2004, the court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record. At appellant's request, this court ordered that a copy of the record be provided to appellant, and we granted appellant an extension of time to file a pro se response to counsel's brief. On June 27, 2005, appellant filed his response. Appellant raises three issues in which he challenges whether the appeal is frivolous and whether the trial court properly determined appellant had violated conditions of his community supervision in adjudicating appellant's guilt. As counsel noted in her Anders brief, it is well settled that a defendant whose deferred adjudication probation has been revoked and who has been adjudicated-guilty-of the original charge may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); see also Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 740-41 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. The proper disposition of an appeal in which the only issues raised involve the trial court's decision to adjudicate is to dismiss the appeal. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.