|
|
|
|
Opinion filed May 15, 2008
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
No. 11-07-00198-CR
__________
RONALD ANGOCHE KOBA, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 94933
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. Ronald Angoche Koba originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary of a building. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. At the hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to five of the allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. 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 twenty months in a state jail facility. We dismiss.
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); In re Schulman, AP-75,911, 2008 WL 1901389 (Tex. Crim. App. April 30, 2008); 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. As counsel on appeal notes, the hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate was conducted prior to the June 15, 2007 effective date of the amendment to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2007) allowing an appeal from the determination to adjudicate. Therefore, former Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (1999) and its prohibition concerning appeals from the determination to proceed with the adjudication of guilt apply.[1] Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Hogans v. State, 176 S.W.3d 829, 831 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 66. Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.).
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
May 15, 2008
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
[1]Former Article 42.12, section 5(b) provided:
On violation of a condition of community supervision imposed under Subsection (a) of this section, the defendant may be arrested and detained as provided in Section 21 of this article. The defendant is entitled to a hearing limited to the determination by the court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. No appeal may be taken from this determination (emphasis added).