TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 4828, HONORABLE GUILFORD L. JONES, III, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appellant moved to dismiss the motion to adjudicate because the State did not use due diligence to apprehend him after filing the motion, thus allowing appellant's term of deferred adjudication supervision to expire before the motion was heard. Appellant relies on this Court's opinion in Connolly v. State, 955 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997). After appellant's brief was filed, that opinion was reversed. Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In its opinion, the court of criminal appeals held that appellate review of the State's diligence in prosecuting a motion to adjudicate is statutorily prohibited. Id. at 741; see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West Supp. 1999) (no appeal may be taken from decision to proceed to adjudication).
We note that the district court granted appellant permission to appeal the due diligence issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3)(C). Such permission is meaningless in light of the Connolly opinion. The point of error is dismissed. See Connolly, 983 S.W.2d at 741; Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
Because appellant advances no point of error directed to the judgment of the district court, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. See Olowosuko, 826 S.W.2d at 942.
Mack Kidd, Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Kidd and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed: May 6, 1999
Do Not Publish