NO. 07-00-0581-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

DECEMBER 10, 2001

______________________________

JORGE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 208TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;

NO. 9417160; HONORABLE DENISE COLLINS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Pursuant to an open plea of guilty for aggravated robbery, on June 6, 1995, appellant

Jorge Luis Rodriguez was granted deferred adjudication and placed on community

supervision for seven years. Upon the State’s motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt

for numerous violations of the conditions of community supervision, a hearing was held on

November 6, 2000. Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant plead true to the State’s allegations

and the trial court adjudicated him guilty and assessed punishment at 22 years confinement.
1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2

Appellant filed a pro se general notice of appeal. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed

an Anders1 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. Based upon the rationale expressed

herein, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction and counsel’s motion to withdraw is

rendered moot.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has diligently

reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error or grounds

upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San

Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. In

compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has

candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court's

judgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant, and informed

appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel has

demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief

if he desires to do so. Appellant did not file a pro se brief. Concluding that the appeal is

frivolous, the State filed a waiver of time in which to file its brief.

When appellant was granted deferred adjudication in 1995 he did not appeal his

sentence. Thus, counsel candidly concedes that under Manuel v. State, 944 S.W.2d 658

(Tex. Cr. App. 1999), this Court does not have jurisdiction to review issues relating to the
3

original deferred adjudication proceeding. See Daniels v. State, 30 S.W.3d 407, 408

(Tex.Cr.App. 2000).

Moreover, article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

expressly denies a defendant the right to appeal from the trial court’s determination to

adjudicate guilt. Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999); Phynes v.

State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 941-42

(Tex.Cr.App. 1992). Although the assessment of punishment and pronouncement of

sentence may be appealed pursuant to article 42.12, section 5(b), because the punishment

was within the statutory range for aggravated robbery and in conformity with the plea bargain,

nothing is presented for our review. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.32(a) and 29.03(b) and

(Vernon 1994); see generally Hardeman v. State, 1 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999).

We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determine

whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. See Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that

the appeal is without merit and is, therefore, frivolous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684

(Tex.Cr.App. 1974); Lacy v. State, 477 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction and counsel’s motion to

withdraw is rendered moot.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice
4

Do not publish.