Duvall, James Darrell v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 12, 2003
• Docket: 01-01-00644-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 12, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

---

NO. 01-01-00644-CR

__________

JAMES DARRELL DUVALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 777551

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          James Darrell Duvall, appellant, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of burglary of a habitation, and, pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for six years.           On October 4, 2000, the State filed an amended motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision when he committed multiple criminal offenses, namely, assault on a family member, indecency with a child, and aggravated assault of a child. Furthermore, the State alleged that appellant failed to pay fees and fines and failed to participate in a 12-step rehabilitation program. On April 18, 2001, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to adjudicate, found appellant guilty of the offense of aggravated assault, and sentenced him to 10 years confinement in prison.

          In two points of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision because (1) the evidence did not establish that appellant assaulted his girlfriend and (2) it was not shown that his girlfriend’s testimony was not the result of bias or perjury. Both of appellant’s alleged complaints arise from the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt.

          Appellant cannot appeal the trial court’s determination to adjudicate guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 §5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003); Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Salgado v. State, 36 S.W.3d 911, 912 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Therefore, we overrule appellant’s two points of error.

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Jennings, and Hanks.