Nathan L. Woods v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 21, 2005
• Docket: 13-04-00214-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-04-00214-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG

NATHAN LAWRENCE WOODS,                                                      Appellant,

                                                             v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                    Appellee.

      On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez

                         Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant, Nathan Lawrence Woods, pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance.  After accepting appellant=s plea, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed him on community supervision for three years. 

The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate appellant=s guilt, asserting appellant had violated various conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision, including (1) the commission of a criminal offense, (2) the consumption of alcohol, and (3) the violation of his 10:00 p.m. curfew.  Appellant pleaded Anot true@ to the State=s allegations.  After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court (1) found appellant had violated two conditions of his community supervision, (2) adjudicated him guilty of the offense of possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance, (3) assessed his punishment at two years= confinement in a state jail facility, (4) suspended the sentence, and (5) placed him on community supervision for a term of five years.  As a condition of his community supervision, the trial court ordered that appellant be confined and treated in a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility.  The trial court has certified that this is not a plea bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

As this is a memorandum opinion not designated for publication and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of our decision and the basic reasons for it.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

In a single issue, appellant complains that he was denied an adequate punishment hearing following adjudication.  This complaint, though couched in terms of punishment, is entirely predicated upon appellant=s argument that the evidence presented by the State is insufficient to support the trial court=s finding that he violated the conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision.  The arguments that appellant makes in his brief clearly show that he is actually challenging the trial court=s determination to proceed with the adjudication of guilt.

Article 42.12, section 5(b) of the code of criminal procedure provides that no appeal may be taken from a trial court=s determination to proceed with adjudication of guilt.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); see Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).  Thus, we have no power to review any challenge to the sufficiency of the notice contained in the terms and conditions of the community supervision imposed by the trial court, adequacy of the State=s motion to revoke, or sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court=s adjudication decision.  See Connolly, 983 S.W.2d at 741.

Even if we viewed appellant=s issue as an actual attack on the adequacy of the punishment hearing, appellant does not complain of any impropriety during the hearing.  The record shows there was a separate punishment hearing and appellant was afforded an opportunity to present evidence.  Further, because appellant did not object at the punishment hearing, he has waived any error.  See Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  We overrule appellant=s sole issue.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

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

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 21st day of July, 2005.