William Rivas v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 4, 2006
Docket07-06-00009-CR
StatusPublished

This text of William Rivas v. State (William Rivas 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
William Rivas v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

NO. 07-06-0009-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL C


MAY 4, 2006

______________________________


WILLIAM RIVAS,


Appellant



v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS,


Appellee

_________________________________


FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY;


NO. CR-04I-129; HON. ROLAND SAUL, PRESIDING
_______________________________


Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________


Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant, William Rivas, appeals from the trial court's adjudication of his guilt for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon by contending that his trial counsel was ineffective. Counsel was purportedly ineffective because he did not obtain two expert witnesses. The experts could have been used, he continues, at the hearing upon the State's motion to adjudicate guilt to show that he did not commit the crime resulting in the decision to adjudicate. For the reason stated below, we dismiss the appeal.

No appeal may be taken from the trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 §5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005); Hogans v. State, 176 S.W.3d 829, 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (involving a claim of ineffective assistance). Given this rule, a defendant may not assert, on direct appeal, that his attorney denied him the effective assistance of counsel during the proceeding to adjudicate. Hogans v. State, 176 S.W.3d at 833. Here, appellant asserts that his attorney should have acquired two experts to prove that he did not commit the crime upon which the trial court founded its decision to adjudicate appellant's guilt. As posited, trial counsel's supposed ineffectiveness is offered as a way to attack the decision to adjudicate. And, because it is, we have no jurisdiction to review the matter.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.



Brian Quinn

Chief Justice



Do not publish.



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

Related

Hogans v. State
176 S.W.3d 829 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
William Rivas v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-rivas-v-state-texapp-2006.