|
|
|
|
Opinion filed October 13, 2005
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-05-00074-CR
__________
GARNELL MOSELEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 385th District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR28472
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudicating guilt. Garnell Moseley originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of appellant=s guilt, placed him on community supervision for 10 years, and assessed a $2,000 fine. At the hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to each of the five allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. After the hearing, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for 15 years. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of 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); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex.App. - Eastland 2005, no pet=n).
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 2004 - 2005) precludes an appeal challenging the trial court=s determination to proceed with the adjudication of guilt. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1992).
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
October 13, 2005
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.