### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIRD DISTRICT , AT AUST IN

NO. 03-00-00029-CR NO. 03-00-00030-CR NO. 03-00-00031-CR NO. 03-00-00032-CR

Ronald D. Margolis , Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE

DISTRICT CO URT OF H ARRIS COUNTY, 185TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 666, 527, 666, 528, 666, 529 & 666,530 HONORABLE SUSAN BROWN, JUDGE PRESIDING

Ineach of these causes , appellant Ronald D. Margolis pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by exposure. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21. 11(a)(2) (West Supp. 2000). The district
court found that the evidence substantiated appe llant ’s guilt and, pursuant to a plea bargain, placed
a ppellant on deferr ed adjudication community supervision. The State later moved to revok e
su pe rv ision and pr oceed to adju dication. After appellant p leaded tr ue to the all egations, t h e di st ri ct court r evoked supervision, adjudged appellant guilty, and imposed sentence of impr isonment f

or t en year s. Inpoints of err or five, six, and se ven, app el la nt co nt ends

th e d is tri ct court fu ndamenta

llyerr ed and violated his due process and due course of law rights by revoking1 Appe llant ’s argument under thes e points is that t he Sta te failed to prove the allege d violatio ns, and that the conduct proved did not violate the conditions of su pervis ion. Appe llant ’s pleas of true, however, were sufficient to support revocation on the grounds alleged. Moses v. State , 590 S
. W. 2d 469 , 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) ; Peque no v. State , 710 S. W. 2d 709, 711 (Tex. App.

—

Houston [1s t Dist. ] 1986 , pet. ref’d).
2 Other cour ts of appeals have held that the statutory pr ohibition of appeals from the decision to ad judic ate preclude s ev en an appe al ch allenging

the c onst ituti onal ity of t

he prohi bitio n its elf. Sanders v. State , 944 S. W. 2d 448, 450 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th

Dist. ] 1997 , no pet. ); Tillman 2 supervision

and proceedi

ng to adjud

icate ba sed on c onduct tha t did notviolate the conditions of supervision. SeeU. S. Const. amend. XIV; Tex. Const. art. I, §§ 10, 13, 19. No appeal may be taken from the deter mination to revoke s up ervision and a djudicat e guilt. Tex. Code Crim. Pr oc. Ann. art. 42. 12, § 5(b) (West Supp. 2000). These points of err or pr esent no thin g for review. 1 In points of err or one and two, appellant contends article 42. 12, section 5(b), by denying him the right to appeal the decision to proceed to adjudication, violates the Texas Constitution’s open courts and inalienabl e rig hts guar antees. SeeTex. Const. art. I, §§ 13, 29. Appe llant ’s argument fails because it rests on the assumption that he posses ses a constitutional right to appeal that may

no t b e i nf ringe d b y t

he le gi sl at ure . It ha s l ong b ee

n re co gniz ed , ho wever, that neither the Unit ed

States nor the Texas C onstituti on guar antees a right to appeal a cr iminal conviction. Phyne

s v. State , 828 S. W. 2d 1, 2 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1992). The right to appeal does notexist unless authorized by statute. Watso n v. State , 924 S. W. 2d 711, 713 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1996)
. “ [W]hen a le gislative enact ment sa ys an a ccuse d ma

y not appea

l a determinati on to adjudicate, there is no right to do so. ” Phynes , 828 S. W. 2d at 2. Points of er ror one and two, if proper ly before us, are over ruled. 2v. State , 919 S. W. 2d 836, 838 (Tex. App.

— F ort Wor th 1996, pet. ref’d)
. 3 Inpoints of err or eight and nine, appe llant contends he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the punishment he aring that followed the adjudic ations o f guilt. Appe llant ’s general notices of appeal do not state that he has the distr ict cour t’s per mission to r aise this issue. SeeTex. R. App. P. 25. 2(b)(3) (C); see Watson , 924 S. W. 2d at 714. On ce agai n , nothing is presented for r eview.

Inpoints of err or thr ee and four, appellant contends the application of appella te rule 25. 2(b)(3) to thes e appea ls also violates article I, sections 13 and 29 of the TexasConstitution. Appellant argues that the rule eff

ectively nullifies the right to appeal gr anted by article 4 2. 12 , section 5(b), which permits an appeal following adj udication of guilt “ as if the adjudication of guilt had not be en de ferred. ” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42. 12, § 5(b).

The limited right to appeal following a negotiated guilty plea was initially enacted by the legislature. SeeAct of May 23, 1 9 77, 65th Leg. , R. S. , ch. 351, § 1, 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 940 (Tex. Code Cri m. Pr oc. Ann. art. 44. 02, proviso r epealed by order of Texas Court of Cri minal Appeals

effective Sept. 1, 1986). The restr iction was carried for ward into for mer Texas Rule of Ap

pellate Procedure 40(b)(1), the predeces sor of current rule 25. 2(b)(3). The court of criminal appeals determined thatthe appli cation of rule 40 (b) to appea ls pursuant t

o article 42. 12, section 5(b) was intended by the legislature. Watson , 924 S. W. 2d at 714. B ecause the right to appeal in criminal cases is defined by the legislature, it follows that rul e 25. 2( b)(3) does not impermissibl

y infringe on ap

pella nt’sright to appeal. Points of er ror three and four are over ruled.4 The judgments of conviction are affir med.

J. Woodfin Jones, Justice B efore Justices Jones, Kidd and Yeakel Affirm ed F iled: November 30, 2000 Do N ot Pu blish