Bearden v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Bearden v. State

147 S.W.3d 661, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 9153, 2004 WL 2330968

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 15, 2004

Docket07-03-0055-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 147 S.W.3d 661 (Bearden v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bearden v. State, 147 S.W.3d 661, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 9153, 2004 WL 2330968 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

*662 BRIAN QUINN, Justice.

Troy Stacy Bearden (appellant) appeals from a judgment adjudicating his guilt for the crime of aggravated sexual assault on a child. His sole issue involves whether the trial court erred in failing to have him “examined for competence to stand trial” at the hearing upon the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke his community supervision. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

We have no jurisdiction over appeals involving the “determination by the [trial] court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge,” Tex.Code Chim. PROC. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp.2004-2005). Furthermore, such appeals include those involving the appellant’s competency at the time of the adjudication hearing. Sanders v. State, No. 07-00-0519-CR, 2001 WL 1217313, 2001 Lexis 6882 (Tex.App.-Amarillo October 11, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication); accord, Davis v. State, 141 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet. h.) (holding the same); Nava v. State, 110 S.W.3d 491, 493 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2003, no pet.) (holding the same). Thus, we have no choice but to dismiss this appeal. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1992).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*662 BRIAN QUINN, Justice.

Troy Stacy Bearden (appellant) appeals from a judgment adjudicating his guilt for the crime of aggravated sexual assault on a child. His sole issue involves whether the trial court erred in failing to have him “examined for competence to stand trial” at the hearing upon the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke his community supervision. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

We have no jurisdiction over appeals involving the “determination by the [trial] court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge,” Tex.Code Chim. PROC. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp.2004-2005). Furthermore, such appeals include those involving the appellant’s competency at the time of the adjudication hearing. Sanders v. State, No. 07-00-0519-CR, 2001 WL 1217313, 2001 Lexis 6882 (Tex.App.-Amarillo October 11, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication); accord, Davis v. State, 141 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet. h.) (holding the same); Nava v. State, 110 S.W.3d 491, 493 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2003, no pet.) (holding the same). Thus, we have no choice but to dismiss this appeal. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1992).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.W.3d 661, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 9153, 2004 WL 2330968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bearden-v-state-texapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack