In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-20-00025-CR
________________
CORY BRYAN STEWART, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 163rd District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B180110-R
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cory Bryan Stewart pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault and the trial court
placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision. After Stewart violated
the terms of his community supervision, the State moved to adjudicate, and Stewart
pled “true” to the violations. The trial court ultimately revoked Stewart’s community
supervision, adjudicated him guilty of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced him
to eighteen years of confinement. Stewart appeals and in one issue challenges the
voluntariness of his original plea. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
1
Background
A grand jury indicted Stewart for aggravated sexual assault involving a child
under the age of fourteen. In August 2018, the trial court conducted a hearing
regarding Stewart’s plea agreement with the State. During the hearing, Stewart
initially pled “not guilty.” Following a brief recess with his attorney and a lengthy
exchange with the trial court, Stewart advised the trial court that he was “[g]uilty”
of “[w]hat the indictment says.” The trial court then asked whether Stewart
understood the paperwork he signed and that by signing it, he was “giving up certain
constitutional rights[,]” to which he indicated he did. The trial court further inquired
if Stewart understood the range of punishment in the event of conviction, and
Stewart said he understood. Stewart’s signed plea admonishments, punishment
recommendation, and sex offender registration admonishments were admitted as
exhibits during the hearing. The trial court accepted Stewart’s guilty plea, and on
October 12, 2018, the trial court entered an “Order of Deferred Adjudication”
pursuant to the plea bargain agreement placing Stewart on community supervision
for a period of eight years. Stewart did not appeal that Order.
After Stewart violated several conditions of his community supervision, on
November 22, 2019, the State filed a Motion to Impose Guilt. Thereafter, the trial
court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion wherein Stewart pled “true” to the
allegations regarding his violations. On January 8, 2020, the trial court revoked his
2
probation, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to eighteen years of
incarceration. Following the revocation of his probation and adjudication of guilt,
Stewart appealed.
Analysis
On appeal, Stewart does not challenge the trial court’s revocation of his
probation or adjudication of guilt, rather he challenges the trial court’s acceptance
of his underlying guilty plea pursuant to his plea bargain agreement with the State.
Specifically, he contends the trial court “abused its discretion in failing to accept
appellant’s plea of not guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty in minutes of the court.”
The State counters that since Stewart’s complaint is related solely to the original
guilty plea, it is not properly raised in this appeal.
Typically, “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); see also Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.755(e) (defendant’s right to appeal “shall be
accorded the defendant at the time the defendant is placed on community
supervision[]”); Perez v. State, 424 S.W.3d 81, 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Arreola
v. State, 207 S.W.3d 387, 390 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). “[A]n
appellant will not be permitted to raise on appeal from the revocation of his
3
community supervision any claim that he could have brought on an appeal from the
original imposition of that community supervision.” Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313,
319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citation omitted). A recognized exception to this
general rule is if the original judgment imposing community supervision was void.
See Ebiana v. State, 77 S.W.3d 436, 438 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburgh
2002, pet. ref’d) (citation omitted). However, neither an involuntary guilty plea nor
an ineffective assistance claim will render the resulting judgment void. See Jordan
v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783, 785 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (citing Custis v. U.S., 511 U.S.
485, 496–97 (1994) (stating that claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel
and the voluntariness of guilty pleas do not rise to the level of a jurisdictional defect
resulting from the failure to appoint counsel at all)). Stewart does not contend the
original order placing him on community supervision was void. Therefore, Stewart’s
complaint regarding the voluntariness of his plea should have been raised when
deferred adjudication community supervision was imposed.
“A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’
jurisdiction.” Perez, 424 S.W.3d at 85 (quoting Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522
(Tex. Crim. App. 1996)). However, Stewart did not file a notice of appeal until
January 23, 2020, following the trial court’s revocation of his community
supervision. Because Stewart failed to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of
being placed on deferred adjudication community supervision, this appeal
4
challenging the voluntary nature of his plea is untimely. See id.; see also Tex. R.
App. P. 26.2(a) (setting forth deadline to file a notice of appeal in criminal cases).
Conclusion
Having determined that Stewart failed to timely file a notice of appeal from
the trial court’s order placing him on deferred adjudication community supervision,
we lack jurisdiction to consider the single issue he raises in his appeal. See Perez,
424 S.W.3d at 86. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
Manuel v. State, 981 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998), aff’d, 994
S.W.2d 658 (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
________________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on April 13, 2021
Opinion Delivered December 8, 2021
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
5