Clifton, John

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 29, 2006
• Docket: WR-60,584-03
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-60,584-03 EX PARTE JOHN CLIFTON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM CAUSE NO. 241-1087-01 FROM THE 241^ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY

Per curiam.

ORDER

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was transmitted to this Court by the clerk of the trial court pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Ex Parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child and originally received 7 years of deferred adjudication community supervision. His community supervision was later revoked and his guilt adjudicated, and he was sentenced to ten years' confinement. Applicant attempted to appeal his conviction, but the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because Applicant had expressly waived his right to appeal. Clifton v. State, No. 12-03-00313-CR (Tex. App. - Tyler, September 24, 2003, pet. ref'd).

Applicant's first application for writ of habeas corpus was denied without written order by this Court on December 1, 2004. This Court dismissed his second application as a subsequent application under Article 11.07, Section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure on January 4, 2006.

In the instant application, Applicant contends that his community supervision was improperly revoked, that he is being improperly classified as a "3g" offender by TDCJ, that his prior writs were improperly denied and dismissed, and that he was denied the opportunity to appeal the revocation of his community supervision.

Applicant has provided no legal basis for his claim that this Court improperly denied and dismissed his prior applications. This Court has reviewed Applicant's first ground for relief and has determined that it is barred from review under Article 11.07, Section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, that claim is dismissed. Applicant's remaining claims concerning his classification as a "3g" offender and the alleged denial of his right to appeal the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision are without merit; therefore, they are denied.

DO NOT PUBLISH

DELIVERED: March 29, 2006