11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Keith Charles Johnson
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-01-00146-CR B Appeal from Dallas County
State of Texas
Appellee
This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. In April 1999, appellant originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of appellant=s guilt, placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for 5 years, and assessed a $500 fine. In October 1999, appellant entered a plea of true to the State=s allegation that he had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found the allegation to be true, modified the terms and conditions of community supervision to include electronic monitoring, and continued appellant=s deferred adjudication community supervision. At the 2000 hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to the State=s allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by using cocaine and marihuana and by violating his curfews while on the AElectronic Monitoring Program.@ The trial court determined that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and assessed his punishment at confinement for 8 years and a $600 fine. Appellant filed a pro se general notice of appeal. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he conscientiously examines the record and the applicable laws and states that he has concluded that there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. As counsel points out, appeals from judgments adjudicating guilt are limited; and appellant cannot challenge the trial court=s decision to adjudicate. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2002); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). In an appeal after the revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision, appellant cannot challenge the original plea or the original decision to defer the adjudication of guilt. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). Appellant is further limited by his general notice of appeal which failed to comply with the requirements of TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(b)(3). Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880 (Tex.Cr.App.2001). We agree that the appeal is without merit.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
May 9, 2002
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.