In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00408-CR 

JESUS RIVERA DAVILA, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 100th District Court 

Carson County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 5158, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding 

 

November 17, 2016 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Jesus Rivera Davila, appeals from the trial court’s judgment 

adjudicating him guilty of the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance,1

revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision, and sentencing him to 

imprisonment for a period of 55 years in the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division. Through one issue, appellant contends his constitutional rights 

 

1 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(f) (West 2014). 
2

were violated when he was not provided an interpreter during an intake interview. We 

will affirm.

Background

In March 2013, appellant was charged via indictment with possession of 

methamphetamine in an amount of 400 grams or more. He was represented by 

appointed counsel.

The court held a plea hearing on April 22, 2013. That same day, appellant 

signed, swore to and filed with the trial court an application for community supervision. 

The application contained a list of conditions of community supervision that appellant 

swore he would perform. The list included his agreement to “commit no offense against 

the laws of this State or of the United States,” “report to the Community Supervision 

officer as directed, but at least once each thirty days,” and “obey any other conditions 

imposed as a condition of community supervision.” 

Appellant pled guilty and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication 

community supervision for a period of five years and imposed a $2000 fine. The court’s 

order imposed conditions of community supervision that exceeded those listed in 

appellant’s application, and contained the conditions that appellant commit no offense 

against the laws of Texas, any other State or the United States, report to his community 

supervision officer monthly and complete a total of 400 hours of community service, with 

100 hours to be completed by October 1, 2013.

Below the judge’s signature on the order appears the language:
3

I hereby acknowledge that the conditions of Community Supervision have been 

explained and I fully understand them. I further acknowledge receipt of a copy of 

the conditions of my Community Supervision.

Appellant’s dated signature and hand-printed name appear below that language, 

along with his thumbprint and a statement that the conditions were “explained by” a 

community supervision officer. One of the 100th Judicial District Community 

Supervision Officers, Mark White, signed the order indicating he explained the 

conditions to appellant. 

The court signed an order of deferred adjudication the same day.

Appellant, a native of Puerto Rico living in Florida, was provided an interpreter 

during his plea hearing. However, he was not provided an interpreter for his intake 

interview with the 100th Judicial District Community Supervision Department, during 

which the conditions of his supervision were reviewed. 

In March 2014, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant 

committed several violations of community supervision. Among those allegations were 

that appellant possessed and used cocaine on more than one occasion, possessed 

drug paraphernalia, failed to report to his community supervision officer monthly by mail, 

and failed to complete the required community service. 

In November 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion. An 

interpreter was present to assist appellant during the hearing. Appellant pled “not true” 

to the State’s allegations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the State waived its 

allegations that appellant possessed and used cocaine. The trial court found appellant 
4

possessed drug paraphernalia2and violated the reporting and community service terms.

The court adjudicated appellant guilty of possession of methamphetamine, revoked his 

community supervision and sentenced him as noted. This appeal followed.

Analysis

Article 38.30 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides: “(a) When a 

motion for appointment of an interpreter is filed by any party or on motion of the court, in 

any criminal proceeding, it is determined that a person charged or a witness does not 

understand and speak the English language, an interpreter must be sworn to interpret 

for the person charged or the witness . . . .” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.30

(West 2013); see also Gonzalez v. State, No. 03-01-00109-CR, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 

8247, at *4-5 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 13, 2001, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (citing Baltierra v. State, 586 S.W.2d 553, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)).

Appellant argues that the interview in which the conditions of his community 

supervision were explained to him was an extension of his plea hearing at which the 

court had determined he was entitled to the services of an interpreter, and his 

constitutional due process rights and rights to confront witnesses3 were violated when 

the interpreter was not present to assist him at the interview. 

Appellant does not cite us to authority supporting his premise that his interview 

with the community supervision officer was a part of his guilty-plea proceeding for 

 

2 Appellant entered a nolo contendere plea in Florida to the charge of possession 

of drug paraphernalia. The documentation relating to that plea was included in the “pen 

packet” offered to the court during the revocation proceeding. 

3 See U.S. CONST. AMENDS. XIV; VI. 
5

purposes of article 38.30 and we do not here examine that premise. For even assuming 

its correctness, the issue appellant raises is not one we may consider on appeal of his 

judgment of conviction. It is the general rule that a defendant placed on deferred 

adjudication community supervision may not raise issues relating to the original plea 

proceeding for the first time on appeal of the revocation of community supervision. 

Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (“a defendant placed 

on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to the original 

plea proceeding, such as evidentiary sufficiency, only in appeals taken when deferred 

adjudication community supervision is first imposed”). 

For purposes of the rule stated in Manuel, “issues relating to the original plea 

proceeding” may include claims of violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 

claims of constitutional violations. See Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 666 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2001); Jordan v. State, 54 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 

The prohibition of attacks on the original plea proceeding after revocation is 

subject to the void judgment exception. Nix, 65 S.W.3d at 666; Jordan, 54 S.W.3d at 

785. But a judgment is void “only in very rare situations – usually due to a lack of 

jurisdiction.” Nix, 65 S.W.3d at 668. Appellant does not argue his conviction is void, 

and we could not in any event sustain such an argument. An “involuntary plea” 

preceding deferred adjudication community supervision does not render the later 

judgment of conviction void. Jordan, 54 S.W.3d at 785 (citing Custis v. United States,

511 U.S. 485, 496, 114 S. Ct. 1732, 128 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1994)).
6

If appellant did not understand the terms of his community supervision because 

he was not assisted by an interpreter at the interview, he had avenues under our state’s 

laws to present the claim he now makes. See Donovan v. State, 68 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2002) (outlining avenues available for assertion of contention plea was 

involuntary because of defendant’s ignorance of conditions of probation); Manuel, 994 

S.W.2d at 661; Swafford v. State, No. 03-03-00344-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 3739 

(Tex. App.—Austin April 29, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(defendant may challenge voluntariness of plea in appeal from order deferring 

adjudication). He may not, however, raise the claim in this appeal.

Moreover, if the court erred by failing to insure the interpreter accompanied 

appellant to the intake interview, the error is subject to analysis for harm.4“Except for 

certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as 

‘structural,’ no error, whether it relates to jurisdiction, voluntariness of a plea, or any 

other mandatory requirement, is categorically immune to a harmless error analysis.” 

Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 

We note first that, so far as the record shows, appellant has never contended he 

did not understand the conditions of his community supervision, and he does not make 

that contention on appeal. At the plea hearing, appellant was assisted both by counsel 

 

4

In Marin v. State, the court determined our criminal justice system “contains 

three distinct categories of rules: (1) absolute requirements and prohibitions, (2) rights 

that must be implemented unless expressly waived, and (3) rights that are to be 

implemented upon request.” Garcia v. State, 429 S.W.3d 604, 606-607 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014) (citing Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). If a 

trial court is aware that a defendant does not understand English, the right to an 

interpreter is a right falling under the second category. Garcia v. State, 149 S.W.3d 135, 

145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
7

and by an interpreter. The terms of his plea agreement made specific reference to the 

community service requirement, and the court made additional references during the 

course of his admonitions. After the court announced the deferred adjudication, he 

inquired of appellant whether its terms were “going to be something you will be able to 

complete,” and received an affirmative response. And, as noted, appellant signed 

documents acknowledging the conditions of his community supervision. That appellant 

had an understanding of the community supervision requirements is further shown by 

evidence he performed some 67.5 hours of the required community service after his 

return to Florida. 

At his revocation hearing, again assisted both by counsel and by an interpreter, 

there was testimony regarding the absence of an interpreter during appellant’s intake 

interview, but appellant did not tell the court he did not understand the conditions of his 

community supervision. Three of his family members testified on punishment, and none 

of them so much as hinted appellant lacked an understanding of the conditions. 

The two Texas officers who supervised appellant’s probation testified at the 

revocation hearing. The officer who conducted the intake interview said an interpreter

was available but he did not call for him because he did not believe an interpreter was 

needed. He told the court appellant did not request an interpreter and no notation on 

the intake form appeared indicating appellant required an interpreter. And, appellant 

indicated his understanding by “nodding his head or saying okay” as the officer outlined 

each condition. Appellant answered questions asking for his address, age and the 

names of persons living with him. The officer said he had no difficulty understanding 

appellant. The other officer testified she met with appellant before he left Texas for his 
8

home in Florida. She told the court she did not need an interpreter while speaking with 

appellant.5

On the record before us, we would conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the 

absence of an interpreter at the intake interview did not contribute to appellant’s 

conviction or punishment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(a) (standard for constitutional 

violations).

We overrule appellant’s issue on appeal, and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Quinn, C.J., concurs in the result.

Do not publish.

 

5 We note “the mere fact that a defendant may be more fluent in another 

language does not require the appointment of an interpreter.” Martins v. State, 52 

S.W.3d 459, 470 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (citing Flores v. State, 509 

S.W.2d 580, 581 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) and Hernandez v. State, 986 S.W.2d 817, 822 

(Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.)).