## NO. 12-07-00339-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS
JAMES MARV IN BROOKS § APPEAL F ROM THE 114TH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM J ames Br ooks appea ls the revoc ation of his c ommunity supervision, following which he wa s se n te n c e d to im

p r is o n me n t f

o r e igh te e n mo n th s . Ap p e ll an t’ s c o un s e l f il e d a b r ie f in c ompliance with Anders v

. Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. C t. 1396, 18 L

. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), a nd Gainous v. Sta te , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We dismi ss for wa nt of jurisdiction.

B ACKG ROUND Appellant was c harg ed with possession of a c ontrolled substance and plea ded “guilty .” The trial court de fer

red f inding Appe llant guilty

and plac ed Appe llant on comm u n ity supervision for three y ear s. Upon application by the State, the trial c ourt later a djudicated Appellant “guilty” of possession of a c ontrolled substance, a nd sentenc ed him to imprisonment for two y ear s, but probated Ap pe lla nt’ s se nte nc e and

pla c e d App e lla

nt o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on fo r f ive y e ars . On July 23 , 2 00 7, the State file d a n ame nd e d p e tit ion

to r e vo ke Ap pe lla

nt’ s c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on a lle g ingthat App e lla

nt h a d v iol ate d mu lti ple te rm s and c on dit ion s th e re of

. O n Augus t 7, 2007, the trial cour

t conducted a hear ing on the S tate’s moti on. Appellant pleaded “true” to each of the thre e alleg ations in the State’s motion. I n conjunction with his ple a o f true, A ppellant2

executed a written waiver of his r ight to a ppeal. At the conclusion of the hear ing, the trial court found that Appe llant had violated the ter ms and conditions of hi s community supervision as alleg ed in t he State ’s mot ion , r e vo ke d App e lla nt’ s c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on , a

nd se ntenced App ella

nt t o imp ri so nme nt f

or e ig hte e n m onths . T he tr ia l c ourt ne xt dis c us se d w ithAp pe lla nt h is a pp e llate rig hts, at which time, the followingexchang e occ urre d:

T H E COU RT : D o y ou w a n t t o g i v e n ot i c e of a pp e a l t od a y or pr e s e n t y ou r w a i v e r ? [A P P E L L A N T ’ S C O U N S E L ]: W e’re p rese nti ng o ur w aive rs. T H E C O U R T : A n d yo u d id sign the w a ive r; is tha t co rr e c t? T H E DE FEND ANT : Y e s , ma ’ a m. T H E CO U R T : C our t approves s ame. This appea l followed.

W A IVE R O F RI GHT T O A P P E AL Appellant plea ded “guilty ” to possession of a c ontrolled substance and has, on two occa sions, pleaded “true” to violating the ter ms and conditions of his community supervision. Followingthe re vocation of his community supervision on August 7, 2007, the trial court a ssessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for e ighte en months. We have re ceive d the tri al court’s cer tification showingthat Appellant wa ived his rig ht to appeal. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d). The cler k’s re cord suppor

ts the trial court’s c ertification. See Gre e nwe ll v . T hirt e e nth Co urt o

f A pp e als , 15 9 S. W.3 d 6 45 , 6 49 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); De ar s v . St ate , 1 54 S.W. 3d

61 0, 61 4– 15 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ). Ac c or din g ly , w e ho ld t hat App e lla

nt h a s w a ive d h is r ig ht t o a pp e a l.

D I S P OS I T I ON Havingheld that Appellant ha s waived his rig ht to appea l, we dis miss the a pp e a l fo r wa nt of jurisdi ction

. A l l p e n d i n gm o t i o n s ar e h e r e b y overruled a s mo ot. Opinion delivere d J uly

31, 2008. Pan el consist ed of Worthen, C .J ., Grif f i t h, J. , an d H

oyle , J. (DO N OT PUBL I SH)