* John T. Boyd , Chi ef Just ice ( Ret.) , Sevent h Court of Appeals, si t ting by as sign m ent. T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 75.0 02(a )(1) (V erno n Su pp. 2 003 ). NO. 07-02-0312-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E FEBRUARY

20, 2003

______________________________ DAVID OLIVER

BENAVIDES,

Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 242 ND DISTRIC T COURT O F HALE COUN TY; NO. B14059-0105; HON. EDW ARD L. SELF, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., an d BOYD, S.J. * Appellant

David Ol iver

Benavides ap peals from an order adjudicating his guil t. He was originally

convicted of theft after a guilt y plea. Adj udication was deferred, and appellant

was pla ced o n com muni ty s uper vi sio n fo r

two y ears. Subseq uently, the State filed a motion and an amended moti on to proceed with adj udication of gui lt. Appellant pled true to all but tw

o of the seven g rounds stated i n the amended motion. The t rial court then2

granted the motion, and sentenced appellant totwo y ears confinement in a state jail facility and a $2,000 fine. Appellant

timely fil ed his appeal. H owever , appellant’s appointed counsel has mov ed to withdraw , after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. Cal ifornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 492 ( 1967), and repr esenting that he has searched t he record and found no arguable g rounds for reversal. The motio n and brief illus trate that appell ant was informed of his rig ht to file his own brief. S o too did weinform appellant that he could file a pro se response or br ief and rev iew the record and t hat any such brief or respon se he cared to file had to b e fil ed by February 10, 2003. To date, a ppellant has filed no su ch response or br ief. In compliance w ith the princ iples enu nciated in Anders , appellate couns el discussed a potential area for app eal relating to the court’s determination that appellant violated his probation. How

ever, couns el also went on to state w hy the arg ument was w ithout merit. Moreover, we conducte d an independent rev iew of the re cord to determine whether there existed r

eversibl e error and found none. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 199 1) (requi ring us to conduct an i ndependentreview). The record before us indicates tha t no appeal was taken wi thin 30 daysfrom the date of appellant ’s guilt y plea comp lain ing of error at th at ti me. Thus , we have no jurisdic tion over any purported error arising from or prior

to the plea hear ing exc ept error r endering the judgment vo id, for which we find no support i n the record. See Nix v. S tate, 65 S.W.3d 664, 66 7 (Tex . Cri m. App. 2001); Manual v. Stat e, 994 S.W.2 d 658, 661- 62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Further, the determination of thetrial cour t to proceed to adjudicati on is not subj ect to appeal. T EX .3

C ODE C RIM . P R OC . A NN . art. 42.12 §5(b) (Vernon Supp. 200 3); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 ( Tex. C rim. App. 1992); Hargrave v. State, 10 S.W.3d 357, 360 (Tex. App. — Houston [1 st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). Moreover, the punishment lev ied was within the range provided by

statute. Acco rdin gly, counsel’s moti on to withdr aw is g ranted, and the j udgment of the tri al court is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish

.