Clifton Bridges v. State of Texas

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-01-214 CR

____________________



CLIFTON BRIDGES, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 75325



OPINION

Clifton Bridges pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of less than one gram. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Bridges on community supervision for a period of ten years. In a subsequent hearing on motion to adjudicate guilt, Bridges pleaded true to the allegations that he failed to report to his community supervision officer, failed to perform community service, failed to pay court-assessed fees, and failed to complete the Drug Diversion program as ordered by the trial court. The trial court found the allegations to be true, convicted Bridges and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. (1) As the plea was non-negotiated, we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).

After appeal was perfected, appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief concludes no arguable error which would support an appeal is presented, a conclusion with which we concur. On July 19, 2001, Bridges was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief if he so desired. We received no response from the appellant.

Bridges cannot raise error relating to the plea proceeding in this appeal, nor may he appeal the trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt. Manuel v. State,  994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Bridges was provided the opportunity to present punishment evidence during the proceedings. See Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

We have reviewed the clerk's and the reporter's records, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM



Submitted on October 22, 2001

Opinion Delivered October 31, 2001

Do Not Publish



Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

1. Bridges pleaded "true" to having a prior conviction for aggravated robbery during the initial proceeding. He was admonished for a third degree felony offense. Had the trial court proceeded with the punishment at that time, Bridges's punishment exposure would have been two to ten years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.35(c)(2)(A) (Vernon 1994). The State recommended four years of incarceration. Instead, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Bridges on felony community supervision ten years, as opposed to state jail felony community supervision. The trial court ultimately convicted Bridges without entering the finding on the enhancement and sentenced Bridges under Section 12.35(a) without objection.