NUMBER 13-03-603-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
_________________________________________________________
KENDRICK WARREN CURTIS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
_________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 228th District Court of Harris County, Texas.
_________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza
In four issues, appellant, Kendrick Warren Curtis, challenges the validity of his plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Because appellant failed to appeal following his original deferred adjudication proceeding, the conviction is affirmed. On November 5, 2002, appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. The court deferred adjudication and ordered the defendant be placed on community supervision for two years. On August 20, 2003, after finding that appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision, the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to ten years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant now appeals the validity of his original plea of guilty in the November 2002 deferred adjudication proceeding. In his first two issues, appellant argues article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure violates his federal and state constitutional right to compulsory process. Specifically, appellant contends that the statute requires that the trial court base its determination of guilt or innocence on the evidence stipulated or offered by the State alone and that it bars the court from considering evidence offered by the defendant. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2004). In his third and fourth issues, appellant alleges that the trial court erred in entering judgment where the record is silent as to waiver of his right to compulsory process. Appellant is barred from raising all four of these issues because they relate not to the trial adjudicating appellant’s guilt but to the original plea proceeding.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that:[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. Certainly it was not the Legislature’s intent . . . to permit two reviews of the legality of a deferred adjudication order, one at the time deferred adjudication community supervision is first imposed and another when, and if, it is later revoked.
Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (emphasis added); see also Daniels v. State, 30 S.W.3d 407, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (“Pursuant to Manuel, . . . appellant cannot now appeal any issues related to the original deferred adjudication proceeding.”).
Appellant should have raised these issues relating to his original plea of guilty within the proper time to file an appeal following the November 2002 proceeding in which the entry of his plea of guilty took place. He cannot now raise issues concerning that proceeding. See Manuel, 994 S.W.2d at 661-62. Accordingly, appellant's four issues are overruled and the conviction is affirmed.
_______________________
DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,
Justice
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Memorandum Opinion delivered
and filed this 29th day of July, 2004.