Opinion
No. 09-04-177 CR
Submitted on January 26, 2005.
Opinion Delivered February 2, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 75,483.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER, and GAULTNEY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Elmer Gregory Lowe pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance pursuant to an agreement on punishment recommendation for deferred adjudication, a fine of $1,000 and community supervision for seven years. The State moved to adjudicate guilt. The trial court judged Lowe guilty and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. From that judgment, Lowe brings this appeal. "[A]n appellant whose deferred adjudication probation has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process." Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). In an attempt to meet the "void judgment exception" to the rule, Lowe asserts the judgment is void because the trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte accepting the appointment of an attorney pro tem who lacked authority to act. See Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 668 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). However, the error Lowe alleges is not one that could render the original judgment void. Id. In fact, such an error can be waived. See Marbut v. State, 76 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002, pet. ref'd); Stephens v. State, 978 S.W.2d 728, 731 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, pet. ref'd). We therefore find Lowe has failed to raise a cognizable issue on appeal. The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.