Demitrius LaMarr Curtis v. State
This text of Demitrius LaMarr Curtis v. State (Demitrius LaMarr Curtis 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.
Opinion
Appellant
Appellee
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Appellant, Demitrius LaMarr Curtis, appeals from a judgment 1) adjudicating him guilty for the offense of possessing a controlled substance and 2) revoking his community supervision. He originally pled guilty to the crime. Furthermore, the trial court, per a plea agreement, deferred the adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community supervision. Thereafter, the State moved to have his guilt adjudicated. In response, appellant moved to withdraw his original plea of guilty. The trial court denied the latter motion and, instead, granted that of the State. Consequently, appellant was adjudicated guilty of the offense mentioned above and sentenced to prison for ten years. The sole issue before us involves the voluntariness of his original plea and the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw it. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
To the extent appellant contends his original plea of guilty was involuntary, we have no jurisdiction over that debate. This is so because the issue was not raised on appeal immediately after the trial court accepted his plea, deferred his adjudication of guilt, and placed him on community supervision. Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Jones v. State, 42 S.W.3d 143, 148-49 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.).
Next, and to the extent that appellant questions the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw the plea, we read the argument as an attack on the decision to adjudicate his guilt. In other words, appellant is arguing that the trial court should not have adjudicated him guilty because his plea was involuntary. Yet, again, we have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter since statute bars a defendant from appealing the trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, §5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); see Porter v. State, 93 S.W.3d 342, 344 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (stating that a defendant who is adjudicated guilty of the original charge cannot appeal supposed error in the adjudication of guilt process).
Having no jurisdiction over the contentions raised by appellant, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
cked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
NO. 07-10-0314-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
AUGUST 18, 2010
______________________________
JOHNNY EDWARDS,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
_________________________________
FROM THE 181st DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 51,148-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING
_______________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Johnny Edwards, appeals his conviction for assault on a public servant. The certification of right to appeal executed by the trial court states that this Ais a plea bargain case and the defendant has NO right of appeal. This circumstance was brought to the attention of appellant and opportunity was granted him to obtain an amended certification entitling him to appeal. No such certification was received within the time we allotted. Having received no amended certification, we dismiss the appeal per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).
Per Curiam
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Demitrius LaMarr Curtis v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demitrius-lamarr-curtis-v-state-texapp-2005.