Benny Lee Campbell v. State

Opinion

Opinion filed July 13, 2006

Opinion filed July 13, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                      Nos. 11-06-00054-CR, 11-06-00055-CR, 11-06-00056-CR,

        and 11-06-00057-CR

                                                    __________

                                 BENNY LEE CAMPBELL, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 350th District Court

                                                          Taylor County, Texas

                       Trial Court Cause Nos. 6942-D, 6343-D, 6344-D, and 6345-D

                                                                   O P I N I O N

These are appeals from four judgments adjudicating Benny Lee Campbell=s guilt.  We dismiss each appeal.

In Cause No. 11-06-00054-CR, appellant originally entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of possession of cocaine and pleas of true to the enhancement allegations.  In Cause Nos. 11-06-00055-CR, 11-06-00056-CR, and 11-06-00057-CR, appellant entered open pleas of guilty to three offenses of delivery of cocaine and pleas of true to the enhancement allegations.  In each case, the trial court deferred the adjudication of appellant=s guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years.  At the hearing on the State=s motions to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to two of the State=s allegations.^[1]  The trial court found six of the State=s allegations to be true.  In each case, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for twenty years.

In his sole issue in each appeal, appellant contends that his plea of true to one of the allegations was involuntary.  However, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005) precludes an appeal challenging the trial court=s determination to proceed with the adjudication of guilt.  Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Hogans v. State, 176 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).  Therefore, appellant=s contentions are not properly before this court, and the issue in each appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The appeals are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

July 13, 2006

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.

---

^[1]We note that proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation.  McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).  Further, a plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke.  Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App.1979).