Larry Lee Gantt v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 29, 2000
• Docket: 13-99-00597-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-99-597-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

LARRY LEE GANTT

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez Opinion by Chief Justice Seerden

Larry Lee Gantt, appellant, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault,⁽¹⁾ but

received deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion for adjudication of guilt alleging that appellant had violated certain conditions of his community supervision. The trial court held a hearing on the motion. At that time, the court considered and denied several motions urged by appellant. The court then proceeded to adjudicate appellant guilty and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.⁽²⁾ The brief meets the requirement that counsel present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

No appeal may be taken from the determination to adjudicate a defendant guilty after he has been placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon 2000). Even appeals stemming from claims of due process violations are subject to this limitation. Leal v. State, 962 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). Accordingly, we may not consider the issues raised in appellant's brief. See Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

We agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The appeal is DISMISSED.

ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice

Do not publish

.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 29th day of June, 2000.

1. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02 (a) (Vernon 2000).

2. A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.