NO. 07-02-0418-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A DECEMBER 21, 2004

______________________________ NEDIEM MAHMOUD SAADEDDINE, APPELLAN T V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 163RD DISTRICT COURT OF ORAN GE COUNTY; NO. B0101 42-R; HON ORABLE D ENNIS PO WELL, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION Appellant

Nadiem Mahmoud Saadeddine appeals from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of aggra vated sex ual assa ult and senten cing him to 25 yea rs incarc eration. We affirm.-2-

Pursuantto a plea bargain, appellant pled guilty to the charge of aggravated sexual assault. The tria l court accepted the punishment recommendation, deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years.
The State filed a motion to adjudicate. At the hearing on the Sta te’s motion, appellant

pled “true” to five allegations of violating the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that appellant violated the terms of his probation, revoked appellant’s community

supervis ion, and adjudica ted him gu ilty. Following a subsequent punishment hearing, appellant was sentenced to incarceration for 25years in the Institutional Division of the Te xas Dep artment of Crimina l Justice

. Appointed counsel for app ell ant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a B rief in Support thereof. In support of the Motion to Withdraw, counsel has certified that, i n compliance with Anders v . California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-745, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the record has been diligently reviewed and that, in the opinion of counsel, the record reflects no reversible error or gr ounds upon which a non-frivolous appeal can arguablybe predicated. Counsel thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no arguably reversible error in the trial court pro ceeding s or judgm ent. See High v. S tate , 573 S .W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cri m.App. 19 78).
Counsel has attached exhibits showing that a co py of the Andersbrief and Motion to Withdraw have been forwarded to appellant, and that counsel has appropriately advised-3-

appellant

of his right to review the record and file a responseto couns el’s moti on and b rief. Appella nt has no t filed aresponse . In deferred adjudication proceedings, appeal as to issue s relating to the original deferred adjudication proceeding must be appealed when the deferred adjudication is first imposed. See Vidaurri v. State , 49 S.W.3d 880, 884-86 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) ; Daniels v. State , 30 S.W.3d 407, 408(Tex.Cri m.App. 20 00). Appellant did not do so. Thus, his notice of appeal was not

timely to invoke appellate jurisdiction to review the original proceeding.
As to those matters unrelated to h is origi nal deferred adjudication proceeding, we have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds for appea l. See Penson v . Oh io , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v . State , 813 S.W. 2d 503, 5 11 (Tex. Crim.App . 1991). We have found no such grounds. We agree that appeal of any such issues would be frivolous.
The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to any issuesrelating to appellant’s original deferred adjudication proceedi ng. The judgm ent of thetrial co urtis affirm ed as to anyissues u nrelated to the original deferred adjudication proceeding. Appel late counsel’s motion to

withdraw

is granted.

Phil Johnson Chief Justice Do not pu blish.