TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 96-111, HONORABLE WILLIAM E. BENDER, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appellant brings forward three points of error contending the district court abused its discretion by revoking community supervision. These points present nothing for review. No appeal may be taken from the decision to proceed to adjudication. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West Supp. 1999). A defendant whose deferred adjudication supervision has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication process. Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The points of error are dismissed. See id. at 741; Olowosuko, 826 S.W.2d at 942.
Because appellant does not advance any point of error directed to the district court's judgments of conviction, the judgments are affirmed. See Olowosuko, 826 S.W.2d at 942.
Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Kidd and Powers*
Affirmed
Filed: April 1, 1999
Do Not Publish
* Before John E. Powers, Senior Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by
assignment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1998).
1. The clerk's record contains separate judgments for each count.