NUMBER 13-98-589-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
________________________________________________________________________
AARON CASTILLO
, Appellant,v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
, Appellee.________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Hinojosa and Yañez Opinion by Chief Justice Seerden
This is an appeal from an order adjudicating guilt and revoking probation. By two issues, Aaron Castillo, appellant, contends that his original plea of guilty was involuntary and that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at his punishment hearing.
Appellant was charged with delivery of cocaine in 1993. On July 19, 1993, appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. He was placed on deferred adjudication for a period of five years. The State filed its fourth motion to revoke appellant's probation on May 8, 1998. On October 22, 1998, after appellant plead true to the allegations in the State's motion, the court adjudicated appellant guilty, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to twelve years confinement in the penitentiary.
By his first issue, appellant contends that his original plea of guilty was involuntary because he was not advised that he would have no right to appeal any adjudication of guilt. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication community supervision is first imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Because appellant's complaint relates to his original plea proceeding, he is barred from raising it in this appeal. We overrule appellant's first issue.
By his second issue, appellant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his punishment hearing after being adjudicated guilty. A defendant may challenge occurrences after adjudication, such as at the punishment hearing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, §5 (b) (Vernon 2000). However, this court must have jurisdiction to consider such contentions. Here, appellant filed only a general notice of appeal. When a defendant files only a general notice of appeal he may only challenge the voluntariness of his plea. See Flowers v. State, 935 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Moore v. State, 4 S.W.3d 269, 272 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). A complaint regarding the effectiveness of counsel at the punishment hearing does not necessarily implicate the voluntariness of appellant's plea. See Lowe v. State, 997 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1999, no pet.)(only the voluntariness of a defendant's guilty plea could be appealed and not complaints regarding counsel's effectiveness where appellant did not comply with Rule 25.2 (b)(3)). Appellant's notice of appeal does not comply with Rule 25.2 (b)(3); we lack jurisdiction to consider appellant's second issue.
The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
_______________________________________
ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief
Justice
Do not publish
.Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed
this 17th day of August, 2000.