Gareau v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gareau v. State

923 S.W.2d 252, 1996 Tex. App. LEXIS 2197, 1996 WL 283894

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 30, 1996

Docket2-94-505-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 923 S.W.2d 252 (Gareau 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

Gareau v. State, 923 S.W.2d 252, 1996 Tex. App. LEXIS 2197, 1996 WL 283894 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

LIVINGSTON, Justice.

In 1992, James Gareau pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement to the offense of indecency with a child, and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication for eight years. In 1994, the State moved to proceed to an adjudication of guilt because Gareau had failed to comply with the terms of his probation. He pleaded true to the allegations in the motion to proceed to adjudication of guilt, and the court adjudicated his guilt and sentenced him to ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

In his sole point of error, Gareau claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the proceeding to adjudicate guilt and that because of this ineffective assis[253]*253tance, his plea of trae was involuntary. Although not argued by the State, article 42.12, section 5 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that a determination to adjudicate guilt may not be appealed. Tex. Code CRIM.PROC.Ann. art. 42.12, § 5 (Vernon Supp.1996); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (holding that defendant could not appeal the determination to adjudicate guilt even though his counsel was not present at the adjudication hearing); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 941-42 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Edwards v. State, 835 S.W.2d 660, 663 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992, no pet.). We dismiss his point of error for want of jurisdiction.

DAUPHINOT, J., concurs with opinion.

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

OPINION

LIVINGSTON, Justice.

In 1992, James Gareau pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement to the offense of indecency with a child, and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication for eight years. In 1994, the State moved to proceed to an adjudication of guilt because Gareau had failed to comply with the terms of his probation. He pleaded true to the allegations in the motion to proceed to adjudication of guilt, and the court adjudicated his guilt and sentenced him to ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

In his sole point of error, Gareau claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the proceeding to adjudicate guilt and that because of this ineffective assis[253]*253tance, his plea of trae was involuntary. Although not argued by the State, article 42.12, section 5 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that a determination to adjudicate guilt may not be appealed. Tex. Code CRIM.PROC.Ann. art. 42.12, § 5 (Vernon Supp.1996); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (holding that defendant could not appeal the determination to adjudicate guilt even though his counsel was not present at the adjudication hearing); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 941-42 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Edwards v. State, 835 S.W.2d 660, 663 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992, no pet.). We dismiss his point of error for want of jurisdiction.

DAUPHINOT, J., concurs with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

923 S.W.2d 252, 1996 Tex. App. LEXIS 2197, 1996 WL 283894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gareau-v-state-texapp-1996.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack