### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00326- CR

Chr ist ophe r Do nal d Ra y Se ssi on a /k/a Or lan do M ye r s, App e lla nt
v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 45712 , HO NORAB LE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n 1996, appell an tC h ri s t o p h er Do n al d R ay S es s i o np l ea d edgu i l ty

t o p o s s es s ing mor e than four grams of c ocaine
. SeeTex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West 2003). The dis tr ic t c ourt

fo un d th a t the e vid e nc e su bs tanti a te d ap pe lla

nt’ s g uil t, de fe rr e d fur

the r p ro c e e din g s, and plac ed appe llant on community supervision for te n y ear s. I n 2004, the cour t hear d the State’s motion to adjudicate, adjudg ed appellant g uilty , and imposed an enha nced sixty -five year

sentenc e. Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp ointe d atto rn e y

fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ing

that the a

pp e a l is frivolous and without merit. The brief mee ts the require ments of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord de m o n s t ra t ing why there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 573 S.W. 2d 80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);2

J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d 55 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 4 3 6 S. W. 2 d

1 3 7 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant has a lso filed a pro se brief raisingseven points of e rror . Points one and tw o c ha lle ng e the su ff

ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e wi th re g ard to t he vio latio ns a lle g e d in

the mot ion

to adjudicate . These points ar e not prope rly befor e us, as the decision to pr ocee d to a djudication is not
a pp e a la ble . T e x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 4 2. 12 , § 5( b) (We st Su pp . 2 00 4- 05 ); Ga rc ia v . S tate , 45 S.W .3d 740, 742 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref ’d). F or the same re as o n, we do not re ach appellant’ s fourth point, in which he c laims that a “mater ial defe nse witness has bee n kept from the court,” appar ently

at the adjudication hearing
. Appellant’s third pro se point of error challeng es t he voluntarine ss of his guilty plea. This contention cannot be raised on appea l following revoc ation of super vision and adjudication of g uilt. J or da n v . S tate , 54 S.W .3d 783, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Pro se points of err or five a nd six complain of stateme nts made by the prosec utor during argument at the sente ncinghear ing. T here was no objec tion to these statements and ther efor e nothing is pre sented for

revie w. Coc k

re ll v . S tate , 933 S.W .2d 73, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). F ina lly , appe lla

nt u rg e s th a t th e 27 th D istri c t Co ur t di d n ot h ave jur isd ic tio n to adjudicate him guilty

and impose sente n ce beca use the indictment wa s filed in the 264th District Court, which also took his guilty plea a nd defe rre d his a d

j u d i ca t ion. I n fac t, the adjudication and
s en t en ci n g p ro ce ed i n gs we re co n d u ct ed i n th e 2 6 4 th Di s tri ct C o urt , al b ei t b ef o re th e e l ec t edj u d ge of the 27 th D istri c t Co ur

t, a s r e fl e c te d o n th e fa c e of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt. No erro r i s shown. Se e Cas e

yv . S tate , 519 S.W .2d 859, 860-61 (Te x . Crim. App. 1975).3 We have r eviewe d the record, c ounsel’s brief , and the pr o se brief

. We find nothing in the rec ord that mig ht arguably support the appe al. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is gr anted. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces K idd and Pury ear Affir med Filed: De cembe r 2, 2004 Do No t Pu

bli sh