Richardson v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Seery v. State

    No. 2-03-244-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 27, 2004)

    We stated in Trevino, "Because of the prohibition in article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure against a direct appeal of the determination to adjudicate, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this point." 962 S.W.2d at 177; see Andrade v. State, 963 S.W.2d 832, 833 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (dismissing appellant's claim that article 42.12, section 5(b) violates the United States Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses); Kendall v. State, 929 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref'd) (dismissing defendant's claim that article 42.12, section 5(b) violated Due Process, while noting that the prohibition is "total."); Tillman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref'd) (dismissing a claim that article 42.12, section 5(b) violates the Texas Constitution's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses); Richardson v. State, 847 S.W.2d 433, 434 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1993, no pet.) (dismissing claim that article 42.12 was unconstitutional). Appellant's claim is barred by the very terms of article 42.12.

  2. Furtado v. State

    No. 2-05-371-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 17, 2006)

    to the constitutionality of section 5(b) itself. See Andrade v. State, 963 S.W.2d 832, 833 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (dismissing appellant's claim that article 42.12, section 5(b) violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution); Trevino v. State, 962 S.W.2d 176, 176 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. ref'd) (dismissing appellant's claim that article 42.12, section 5(b) violates the equal protection and due process protections of the United States and Texas constitutions); Kendall v. State, 929 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref'd) (dismissing appellant's claim that article 42.12, section 5(b) violates due process and noting that the prohibition against a direct appeal of the determination to adjudicate is "total"); Tillman v. State, 919 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref'd) (dismissing claim that article 42.12, section 5(b) violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Texas Constitution); Richardson v. State, 847 S.W.2d 433, 434 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1993, no pet.) (dismissing claim that article 42.12 is unconstitutional). Adhering to our precedent and the rationale expressed therein, we conclude that Appellant's point is not reviewable.

  3. Tillman v. State

    919 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. App. 1996)   Cited 26 times
    Refusing to consider sufficiency challenge

    The court of appeals held that the absence of a statutory right to appeal resulted in the court having no jurisdiction to entertain the issues raised. Id.; see also Rocha v. State, 903 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1995, no pet.) (dismissing allegation that inability to appeal decision to adjudicate guilt violated guarantee of equal protection); Richardson v. State, 847 S.W.2d 433, 433-34 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1993, no pet.) (dismissing defendant's claim that article 42.12 was unconstitutional); Elizondo v. State, 861 S.W.2d 294, 295-96 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1993, no pet.) (dismissing defendant's claims that his adjudication hearing and the revocation of his probation were in violation of due process provisions of the United States and Texas Constitutions). We also note that Tillman is not without remedy to raise claims of alleged violations of his constitutional rights.