Escobar, Marvin Geovanny v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 27, 2003
Docket01-01-01091-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Escobar, Marvin Geovanny v. State (Escobar, Marvin Geovanny 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.

Bluebook
Escobar, Marvin Geovanny v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Opinion issued March 27, 2003.








In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas





NO. 01-01-01091-CR





MARVIN GEOVANNY ESCOBAR, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 818040





MEMORANDUM OPINION


          Appellant, Marvin Geovanny Escobar, pled nolo contendere to felony sexual assault of a child and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years. One year later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate his guilt, asserting that appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision. The trial court held a hearing, and then adjudicated appellant’s guilt and assessed punishment at 20 years’ confinement.

          In two points of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the taped confession presented at his adjudication hearing because the taped confession was obtained in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

          No appeal may be taken from a determination by a trial court of whether to proceed with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge due to a violation of a condition of community supervision. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 42.12 § 5(b) (Vernon 1979 & Supp. 2003). A defendant on deferred adjudication who is adjudicated guilty of the original charge may not 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). This includes assertions that the evidence used at the adjudication hearing was illegally obtained. Holder v. State, 618 S.W.2d 80, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). See also Reagan v. State, 832 S.W.2d 125,127 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.). Accordingly, we overrule both of appellant’s points of error.

Conclusion

          We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

George C. Hanks, Jr.

                                                             Justice


Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Nuchia and Hanks.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

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

Related

Holder v. State
618 S.W.2d 80 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Connolly v. State
983 S.W.2d 738 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Reagan v. State
832 S.W.2d 125 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Escobar, Marvin Geovanny v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escobar-marvin-geovanny-v-state-texapp-2003.