Brian Ike Hart v. State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 31, 2001
Docket10-01-00094-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Brian Ike Hart v. State of Texas (Brian Ike Hart v. State of Texas) 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
Brian Ike Hart v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

Brian Ike Hart v. State of Texas


IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


No. 10-01-094-CR


     BRIAN IKE HART,

                                                                         Appellant

     v.


     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                         Appellee


From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court # 25017CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Brian Ike Hart pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. The court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision in accordance with the State’s plea recommendation. The State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of his guilt about five months later. After a hearing, the court adjudicated Hart’s guilt and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment.

      In Hart’s sole issue, he challenges the court’s admission of certain evidence “during the adjudication stage of the hearing.” However, a defendant cannot challenge the court’s decision to proceed with an adjudication of guilt by direct appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Rodriquez v. State, 972 S.W.2d 135, 137 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998), aff’d, 992 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Thus, Hart cannot “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).

      Because article 42.12, section 5(b) bars Hart from raising the issue presented in a direct appeal, we dismiss the appeal. See Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Hargrave v. State, 10 S.W.3d 355, 357 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d).

                                                             PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis

      Justice Vance and

      Justice Gray

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 31, 2001

Do not publish

[CR25]

e="line-height: 0.36in"> 

                                                                               ROBERT M. CAMPBELL

                                                                               Justice (Sitting by Assignment)


Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Campbell (Sitting by Assignment)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 29, 2000

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

Related

Hargrave v. State
10 S.W.3d 355 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Connolly v. State
983 S.W.2d 738 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Phynes v. State
828 S.W.2d 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Rodriquez v. State
992 S.W.2d 483 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Rodriquez v. State
972 S.W.2d 135 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Olowosuko v. State
826 S.W.2d 940 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brian Ike Hart v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-ike-hart-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2001.