|
|
|
|
Opinion filed January 26, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-05-00271-CR
__________
EFREN PIEDRA JR., Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-0453998-L
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. Efren Piedra Jr. originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated assault on a public servant. A plea bargain agreement was not reached. The trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $500 fine. At the hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty-five 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. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex.App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).
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. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 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. Crim. App. 1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
January 26, 2006
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.