Alirez, Steven v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 5, 2006
• Docket: 14-05-00177-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00177-CR

STEVEN ALIREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 990,596

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of stalking on July 13, 2004, pursuant to a plea bargain.  In accordance with the terms of the plea bargain, the trial judge deferred adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for four years, and assessed a fine of $1,000.  Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt.  At the hearing, appellant entered a plea of true to the State=s allegations.  The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at confinement for  three years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely general notice of appeal, pro se, from the judgment adjudicating guilt.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he 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 and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  Appellant filed a pro se response raising ten issues.

Given the plain meaning of Article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appellant whose deferred adjudication probation has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process.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); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 42.12 ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2000).  Appellant may only raise issues that occur after adjudication of guilt.  See Borders v. State,  846 S.W.2d 236, 834, 836 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).   Nor may we now consider any complaint concerning the original plea because those had to have been raised when deferred adjudication community supervision was first imposed.  Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661‑62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

None of appellant=s ten issues raise error that occurred after adjudication of guilt.  Appellant raises no error in the punishment phase after the finding of guilt.  See Borders, 846 S.W.3d at 836.  Consequently, we are without authority to consider any of appellant=s complaints.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed January 5, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).