James Guiberteaux, III v. State of Texas

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-00-479 CR

NO. 09-00-480 CR

____________________



JAMES GUIBERTEAUX, III, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 73441 and 74668




O P I N I O N

Appellant James Guiberteaux III appeals from the revocation of deferred community supervision in two separate offenses, Cause No. 09-00-479 CR and Cause No. 09-00-480 CR. Pursuant to a plea bargain in each offense, Guiberteaux pleaded guilty to an indictment for the offense of deadly conduct (Cause No. 09-00-479 CR) and a separate indictment for aggravated assault, repeat offender (Cause No. 09-00-480 CR). See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.05(b) (Vernon 1994) (deadly conduct); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02 (Vernon 1994) (aggravated assault). In each case, (1) the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Guiberteaux on community supervision for ten years, and ordered him to pay a $750 fine. Subsequently, the State filed Motions to Revoke Guiberteaux's probation alleging violations of the deferred community supervision orders. In each case, Guiberteaux pleaded true to one of the violations; the trial judge found that count and one other to be true. In each offense, the trial court adjudicated Guiberteaux's guilt and sentenced him to eight years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division.

Guiberteaux raises the same issue in both appeals: "Appellant was denied due process of law in the proceeding wherein Appellant was sentenced by the trial court below." He specifically complains of violations of his due process rights during the sentencing hearing and alleges "there occurred a complete lack of the Constitutional safeguards the [sic] inure to all U.S. and Texas citizens."

As we appreciate his complaint, Guiberteaux is not appealing the trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt. If he were, we could not consider it. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 740-41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt is not subject to appeal.). Although appellant does not identify the denial of any specific right, it appears he is attempting to challenge the process by which he was sentenced or raise Issa error. (2) See Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 884-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (Vidaurri's claim that he was deprived of a separate punishment hearing challenges the process by which he was sentenced, an issue that is "unrelated to his conviction."); see also Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). (3) We have reviewed the sentencing hearing. No Issa error occurred. Guiberteaux did not object at the hearing on due process grounds, and he did not file a motion for new trial. The objections made during the hearing had nothing to do with claims of due process violations and do not comport with the complaint on appeal; consequently, appellant has preserved nothing for review. See Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Further, Guiberteaux does not direct us to any specific point in the hearing where he claims any right was denied. Thus, he waived any error concerning the "process" by which he was sentenced. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). See Vidaurri, 49 S.W.3d at 886. Appellant's issue in each case is overruled. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on October 1, 2001

Opinion Delivered October 10, 2001

Do not publish



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

1. The offenses were disposed of separately in a hearing on the same date.

2.

We conclude we have jurisdiction to address this issue in spite of the fact that Guiberteaux filed a general notice of appeal in each case. As we interpret his argument on appeal, he is challenging the process by which he was sentenced. In that limited context, we have jurisdiction. See Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

3.

In Issa, 826 S.W.2d at 161, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a "defendant is entitled to a punishment hearing after the adjudication of guilt, and the trial judge must allow the accused the opportunity to present evidence."