NO. 07- 00- 0581- CR IN THE COURT OF APP EALS FOR TH E SEVENTH D ISTR ICTOF TEX AS AT AM ARILLO PANE L A DECEM BER 10, 2001

____________

____________

______ JORGE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT

V. THE STAT E OF TEX AS, APPEL LEE

____________

____________

_________ FROM THE 208T H DISTR ICT COU RT OF HARR IS COU NTY; NO. 9 417 160 ; HON ORABLE D ENISE C OLLI NS, J UDGE

____________

____________

_______ Befo re BOYD, C .J., and REAVIS an d JOHNSON, JJ. Pursuantto an ope n pl ea of gui lty f or aggr avated ro bbery , on June 6, 1995, app el la nt J orge Lui s Rodri guezwas g ra nte d de ferre d adj udi cati on a nd p l aced on co mm un it y supervi sion for seven year s. Upon theState’s motion to proceed with an ad jud ica tio n o f g uilt for nu merous vio lat ion s ofth e c on dit ion s ofco mm un ity s up er v isio n, a h ea rin g w as he ld on November6, 2000. Pursuant to a pl ea barg ai n, appel la nt pl ead true to the State’s al le gati ons and the tri al court adjudi cated him gui lty and assessed puni shment at22 year s confinement.1 And ers v . California, 386 U .S. 7 38, 87 S.C t. 1396 , 18 L.E d.2d 4 93 (196 7). 

### 2 Appell antfi le d a pro se generalnoti ce of ap pe al. In pr es en tin g t his ap pe al, counsel has fi le d an And ers 1 bri ef in support of a m ot io n to wi thdraw. Based upon the rati onal e expressed herei n, the ap pe al is dis mis s ed fo r w an t o f ju ris dic tio n a nd co un s el’ s mo tio n t o w ith dr aw is rendered moot. I n support ofhis mo tio n t o w ith dr aw , c ou ns el h as ce rtif ied th at he ha s dilig en tly revi ewed the record and, i n hi s opi ni on, the record refl ects no rever sibl e error or

ground s upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. Cal ifornia, 386 U.S. 738, 744 -45, 8 7 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 49 3 (1967 ); Monroev. State, 67 1 S.W .2d 583, 585 (Tex. App.--San A nt on io 19 84 , n o p et .). Th us , h e c on c lud es th e a pp ea l is f riv ol ous and without meri t. In c om plia nce wit h Hi gh v. State, 573 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Tex .Cr.App. 1 978), counsel has c an did ly discussed why, under the control li ng authori ties, there is no error i n the court' s judgment. Counsel has al so shown that hesenta copy of the brie f to app el la nt, and in formed ap pe ll ant th at, i n counsel 's vi ew, the ap peal i s with out mer it . In ad di ti on, counsel has demonstrated that henoti fi ed appel la nt of hi s ri ght to r eviewthe record and fi lea pr o sebri ef if he desires todo so. A ppel la nt di d not fi lea pro se br ief . C on c lud ing th at th e a pp ea l is fri volous, the State fi led a wai ver of ti me in whi ch to fil e its brief. W hen appel l ant wa s gran te d d ef er re d a dju dic at ion in 1 99 5 h e d id n ot ap pe al h is sentence. Thus, counsel candi dl y concedes t hat under Man uel v. State, 944 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Cr. App. 1999), thi s Court does not have j uri sdicti on to review i ssues rel ati ng to th e

### 3

ori gi nal deferred adj udi cati on proceed in g . See Danie ls v. State, 30 S.W.3d 407, 408 (Tex.C r.Ap p. 200 0). Mo reove r, article 42.12, sec tion 5(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Proc edure ex pr es s lydeni es a def endan t th e ri ght to appe al from the tri al court’ s determinati on to adj udi ca te gui l t. Conn ol l yv. St ate , 98 3 S.W.2d 7 38, 741 (Tex. Cr. App. 199 9) ; Phy nes v. State, 828 S.W .2d 1, 2 (Tex. Cr.App. 199 2); Ol owosuko v. State, 826 S
. W .2d 940, 941-42 (Tex.Cr .App. 1992). Altho ugh the assessment of puni shment and pr onouncement of sentence maybe appeal ed pursuan tto ar ti cle 4 2.12, secti on 5(b) , because the puni shment was wit hi n the stat utory range for ag gravated robber y an d i n conformitywit h the pl ea barg ai n, nothi ng i s presented for our review. See Tex. PenalCode Ann. §§ 12. 32(a)and 29.03 (b)and (Vernon 1994); see genera lly Harde man v . Sta te, 1 S .W .3d 68 9, 690 (Tex.C r.Ap p. 199 9). We have al so made an i ndependent exami nati on of th e enti re record to determi ne whether there are any

arguabl e grounds which mi ght s uppo rt the appeal. See Penso n v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (19 8 8); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex .Cr.App. 1 991). W e have found no such groun ds and agree with counsel that the appeal i s without mer i t an d i s, therefore, fri volou s. Curriev. State, 51 6 S.W .2d 684 (Tex.C r.Ap p. 197 4); Lac y v. Sta te, 477 S.W .2d 57 7, 578 (Tex.C r.Ap p. 197 2). A c c or din gly, th e a pp ea l is di smissed for want of jurisdi ction and counsel’ s motion to withdraw i s rendered moot. Do n H . R ea v is Just i ce

### 4

Do not publi sh.