Durward Dwayne Watson v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 3, 2002
• Docket: 11-01-00368-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Durward Dwayne Watson

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-01-00368-CR B Appeal from Dallas County

State of Texas

Appellee

This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt.  Appellant originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery.  Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for 10 years, and assessed a $3,000 fine.  After a hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and assessed his punishment at confinement for  20 years and a $3,000 fine.  We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she conscientiously examines the entire record and the applicable law and states that the appeal is without merit.  Counsel reviews the indictment, the waivers, the admonishments given, the evidence introduced by the State, appellant=s judicial confession, and the adjudication proceedings and concludes that appellant received a fair hearing free from reversible error.  Counsel also concludes that trial counsel provided reasonably effective assistance.

Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief.  A pro se brief has not been filed.  Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record.  As counsel correctly notes, TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2002) precludes an appeal challenging the trial court=s determination to proceed with the adjudication of guilt.  Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1992).  Appellant did not perfect an appeal when the adjudication of his guilt was deferred and he was placed on community supervision.  Therefore, appellant is limited under Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1999), as to what he can challenge in the appeal from the subsequent adjudication of guilt.  We agree that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

July 3, 2002

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.