Brandon Carey Richardson v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 29, 2010
• Docket: 01-09-00436-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 29, 2010

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-09-00436-CR

———————————

BRANDON CAREY RICHARDSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1162168

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement with the State, appellant, Brandon Carey Richardson, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.[1]  Following the State’s punishment recommendation, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for five years.  

Several months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt. At the hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded “true” to each of the State’s allegations that he had violated his conditions of community supervision.  Appellant offered testimony at the hearing to show a future willingness to comply with the conditions of his community supervision.  Appellant requested the trial court not to adjudicate and to continue his community supervision. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the State’s allegations true and proceeded to adjudicate guilt.  The trial court sentenced appellant to four years in prison.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant raises three issues in his brief.  Each of the issues relates to appellant’s original plea of guilty.  Specifically, appellant claims that his plea was involuntary and contends that his appointed counsel at the time of his guilty plea was ineffective.  Appellant does not raise any issues relating to the adjudication proceeding.

A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding only in an appeal timely filed after the imposition of the deferred adjudication community supervision.  See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).  Here, appellant did not timely appeal the trial court’s order placing him on deferred adjudication community supervision.[2] 

Issues relating to the original plea proceeding may not be raised after community supervision is revoked, and appellant is adjudicated guilty.  See id.  Appellant cannot in this appeal raise issues relating to his original plea of guilt.  See Arreola v. State, 207 S.W.3d 387, 389–90 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).  

We do not have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s arguments relating to the original plea proceeding.  See Manuel, 994 S.W.2d at 661. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Hanks, and Higley.

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

---

[1]           See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (Vernon 2003) (defining elements of aggravated robbery).

[2]           We note that the record reflects that the trial court signed a “Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” in which it indicated that appellant had no right to appeal the order placing him on deferred adjudication community supervision because it had resulted from a plea bargain.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  Nonetheless, that does not affect the disposition of this appeal.