COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00151-CR

BRANDON MAURICE ADAMS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Brandon Maurice Adams appeals the trial court’s judgment 

adjudicating guilt and revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision. 

Because Appellant has waived his right to appeal, we dismiss.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Appellant pled guilty to engaging in organized criminal activity, to-wit: 

robbery, and the trial court placed him on eight years’ deferred adjudication 

community supervision, the terms of which included committing no new offenses.

The State later filed a petition to adjudicate, alleging, among other things,

that Appellant had, during the term of his community supervision, committed the 

offense of possessing a prohibited weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 

§ 46.05(a)(5) (West Supp. 2011). At the hearing on the State’s petition, 

Appellant pled ―true‖ to this allegation and others, the trial court accepted 

Appellant’s plea, adjudicated his guilt, revoked his community supervision, and 

sentenced him to twelve years’ confinement.

Appellant argues two issues. In the first, he asserts that he pled ―true‖

unknowingly and involuntarily because the trial court did not admonish him on the 

range of punishment before taking his plea. In the second, he complains that the 

trial court erred by not insisting, despite his and the State’s waiver of a record,

that the court reporter nonetheless prepare a record of the plea hearing.

The State contends that we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal 

because Appellant waived his right to appeal. In support, the State cites Jackson 

v. State, as an example of a case in which, according to the State, we dismissed 

an appeal for want of jurisdiction under circumstances similar to those in this one. 

168 S.W.3d 239, 242–43 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). We did not 

dismiss Jackson, however, because we lacked jurisdiction. Rather, we

dismissed that case under rule of appellate procedure 25.2(d) because the trial 
3

court’s certification stated that the appellant had waived his right to appeal. See 

id. at 243.

Here, the trial court’s certification does not state that Appellant waived his 

right to appeal. But we are obligated, nonetheless, to review the record to 

determine the accuracy of the certification. Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with the State that the clerk’s record shows 

that, despite the trial court’s certification to the contrary, Appellant waived his 

right to appeal. The clerk’s record contains a three-page document entitled 

―Written Plea Admonishments on Motion to Revoke Community Supervision or 

Petition to Proceed to Adjudication.‖ Item ―L‖ on page two states: ―I give up and 

waive any and all rights of appeal.‖ Page three bears the signatures of 

Appellant, the trial judge, his counsel, and counsel for the State.

Because Appellant has waived his right to appeal, this appeal is dismissed.

See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Jackson, 168 

S.W.3d at 243; Stanley v. State, 111 S.W.3d 773, 775 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2003, no pet.).2

 

2Even if we were to hold that Appellant had not waived his right to appeal, 

we would overrule both issues. The first because although the code of criminal 

procedure requires that a defendant be admonished on the full range of 

punishment before the trial court accepts a guilty plea, that requirement does not 

apply to revocation proceedings. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (West 

Supp. 2011); Gutierrez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 304, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 

The record shows that Appellant was properly admonished on the range of 

punishment when he originally pled guilty and was placed on deferred 

adjudication community supervision. The second because the record shows that 

Appellant and the State agreed to waive an official court reporter. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 13.1(a); Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 
4

LEE GABRIEL

JUSTICE

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 15, 2012

 

Item ―M‖ on page two of the plea admonishments on the petition to adjudicate 

states the following: ―I give up and waive the attendance and record of a court 

reporter under Rule 13.1, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.‖ As discussed 

above, the written plea admonishments bear the signatures of Appellant, the trial 

judge, his counsel, and counsel for the State. As we held in McDougal v. State, 

a criminal defendant may not waive the making of a record and then, on appeal, 

rely on the absence of evidence to support reversal of his conviction. 105

S.W.3d 119, 121 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d).