Opinion issued on May 27, 2004.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NOS. 01-02-01000-CR
01-02-01001-CR
____________
JOSE ALFREDO CAVALIERE, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 179th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 874885 and 874886
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jose Alfredo Cavaliere, Jr., pleaded true to the allegations in the State’s two motions to adjudicate guilt for the felony offenses of criminal non-support. After a pre-sentence investigation report was prepared, the trial court sentenced appellant for each of the criminal non-support convictions to two years’ confinement.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in which she expressed her opinion that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and advancing arguable grounds of error on appeal. Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant who filed a pro se brief.
In two issues, appellant contends that (1) he was denied counsel during his pleading and sentencing hearings and (2) his plea and confession were involuntary. We affirm.
Background
Appellant was charged with two counts of criminal non-support of his two children and was granted deferred adjudication community supervision for five years. Appellant was subsequently charged with delivery of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. The State filed motions to adjudicate appellant’s guilt on the non-support charges, alleging that appellant violated his conditions of community supervision by committing the offense of delivery of a controlled substance.
At a pre-sentence investigation hearing for the non-support offenses, appellant was admonished of the range of punishment. The court informed appellant that the range for each criminal non-support charge was confinement for not less than 180 days or more than two years and a fine not to exceed $10,000. After having been so admonished, appellant, without an agreed recommendation by the State, pleaded true to the allegations in the State’s motions to adjudicate.
Right to Counsel
In his first issue, appellant argues that he was denied counsel during his original plea proceeding, despite a written request to the court for court-appointed counsel.
A defendant placed on deferred adjudication must appeal issues relating to the original plea proceeding when deferred adjudication is first imposed and cannot appeal such matters after guilt has been adjudicated. Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Because he cannot now complain of alleged errors in the original plea proceeding, appellant’s first issue is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Voluntariness
In his second issue, appellant argues that his plea of true and his confession were involuntary and that the trial court failed to conduct a hearing on the voluntariness of his confession.
The voluntariness of appellant’s plea of true in an adjudication of guilt proceeding may not be appealed. Flores v. State, 43 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Hargrave v. State, 10 S.W.3d 355, 357 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to review appellant’s claim. See Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Hargrave, 10 S.W.3d at 357.
We dismiss issue two.
Conclusion
Based on our holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider the issues raised in appellant’s pro se brief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Moore v. State, 466 S.W.2d 289, 291 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
George C. Hanks, Jr.
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Alcala, and Hanks
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.