|
|
NUMBER 13-04-354-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
CHRISTOPHER BARRIENTEZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Yañez, Castillo and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yañez
By a single issue, appellant, Christopher Barrientez, challenges the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision. We affirm.
The record contains the trial court=s certification that this is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right to appeal.[1]
As this is a memorandum opinion not designated for publication and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court=s decision and the basic reasons for it.[2]
On June 18, 2002, pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.[3] He was placed on deferred adjudication for three years, given fifteen days in jail as a condition of probation, and was fined $750. On February 13, 2003, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. Appellant pleaded Atrue@ and was continued on probation. The State filed a second motion to revoke community supervision on April 27, 2004. Appellant pleaded Anot true@ to the State=s allegations. Following a hearing, the trial court found appellant violated all the conditions alleged by the State, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced appellant to two years in a state jail facility.
In a single issue, appellant contends the State failed to prove the elements of its allegations of injury to a child, family violence, and terroristic threats.
Article 42.12 , section 5(b) of the code of criminal procedure provides that no appeal may be taken from a trial court=s determination to proceed with adjudication of guilt.[4] We have no power to review any challenge to the sufficiency of the notice contained in the terms and conditions of the community supervision imposed by the trial court, adequacy of the State's motion to revoke, or sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's adjudication decision.[5] Accordingly, appellant is statutorily barred from challenging the trial court=s determination to proceed with adjudication of his guilt.[6] Thus, we cannot consider appellant=s issue.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
_______________________
LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ,
Justice
Do not publish.
Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 4th day of August, 2005.
[1] See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
[2] See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
[3] See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 31.07 (Vernon 2003).
[4] Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); see also Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
[5] See Connolly, 983 S.W.2d at 741.
[6] See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).