NO. 07-06 -031 8-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JU LY24, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ NOE GERMAN VAREL A, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; NO . 16, 559-A; H ON ORABLE HA L M IN ER , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t N oe Ge rm an Varela appeal s from an order rev oki ng hi s c ommunity super v is ion , adj udi cat ing him g uil ty of po ss ess ion of met hamphetamine , a co ntroll ed subs tanc e, an d i mposi ng a s entenc e tha t i ncl udes confine ment in t he In sti tuti onal D iv is ion of the T exas Departm entof Cri min al Justi c e fo r a p eriod of eighteen y ears. By his sole poi nt of er ro r, appel lan t c ontendsthat his ple as of true to all eg ati ons cont ain ed w it hin the Stat e’smoti on to rev oke w e re n o t m a d e k now ing ly and v olu ntar il y . W e w il l dis mis s for
w ant o f jur is dicti on.SeeTex . H eal th & Safety Cod e Ann. § 481.115 (d ) (V er non 2007) . Thi s i s a se cond 1 degree fel on y pu ni s ha bl e by i mp r i s on me nt for a te r m of no t mo re th an 20 y ea rs or l ess than 2 yearsand a fine not t o ex ceed $10,000

. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 12.33 (V er non 2003)

. The St ate a ls o arg ues the admoni shment s a ppel lan t referenc es are notreq uired

2 at t he ti me the cour

t takes a ple a on all eg ati ons of v iol ati ons of ter ms of probati on. W e do not a ddress the arg ument. 2 In N ov ember

2004, appel lan t was charg ed by i ndi ctment wit h t he offense of poss ess ion of

a c o ntroll ed s ubst ance, sp eci fical ly methamphet amine. In J une 200 5, 1 appel lan t pl ead g uil ty
. The tr ial courtentered an order defer ri ng adjudi cat ion and pla ced appel lan t on communi ty su per v is ion for a t er m of ten years. Appel lan t’ s d eferred adj udi cat ion was condi ti oned on hi s c ompli ance w it h s peci fied te rms and condi ti ons. The Stat e fil ed i ts moti on to rev oke in Ma rc h 2006. At the hear ing on th e moti on, appel lan t ent ered p lea s o f “ tr ue” to some of t he Stat e’s all eg ati ons and ple as of “nottr ue” to ot hers. Purs uant to appell ant’ s pleasof “tr ue” and after hear ing the ev ide nce present ed at th e he aring, the cou rt rev oked app ellant ’s comm unity supervisi on a nd se nte nced him as w e hav e not ed. Appel lan t t imel y appeal ed. App ell a n t ’s p oint o f

error presents th e con ten tion h is pleas of true to th e Sta te’s all eg ati ons in it s motion to re v oke w ere not know ing ly and v olu ntar il y

made, becau se the tr ial co urt di d notadmoni sh him at t he ti me on t he rang e of puni shmentor as to cer

tai n of hisr ig hts

. T h e S t a t e i n i t i a l l y

a rg u e s a p p l i c a b l e l a w b a rs u s f ro m c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p o i n t
. W e 2 ag re e w it h the Stat e. At the t ime of appell ant’ s a dju dic ati on of g uil t, the C ode of C ri minalThe adj udi cat ion of appel lan t’ s g uil t occ ur re d before the effect iv e dat e of Senat e 3 Bi ll 909, w hic h aut hor iz es appeal s f ro m the deci si on to adjudi cat e. Actof June 15, 2 007, 80 Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 308 , § 1 . 2007 Te x . Gen . Laws–(ame ndin g T ex. C ode Cri m. Proc. th Ann . art. 42 .12 , § 5). 3 Procedu re di d notpermitappeal of the t ri al cour t’ s d eter minat ion to proceed to adj udi cat e the g uil t of

a d efendant w hose adj udi cat ion had been de ferred. Phyn es v. State, 828 S.W .2d (Tex .C ri m.App. 1992) ; Tex

. Cod e Cr im. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5( b) ( Ver non Su pp. 2004)

. The scop e of

that r ule enc ompass ed c lai ms of er ro r ar is ing “ in the a dju dic ati on of 3 guilt process.” Con nol ly v. Sta te, 983 S.W .2d 7 38 ( Tex .C rim .A p p . 1999). Si nce the
v olun tarine ss of

app ellant ’s pleas of

“true” to the St ate ’s allegations in the mot ion to rev oke is a matter

ar is ing i n that proc ess , w e hav e no jur is dicti on to co nsi der i t. See Hargrave v. State, 1 0 S

. W

. 3 d 35 5 , 3 6 0 (T e x.A p p .– Ho u st o n [1 Dist .] 19 9 9 , p e t. ref ’d ) (o p . o n reh ’g) st (h old ing thata c hal len g e to the volu ntar ine ss of appel lan t' s p lea of tr ue to the all eg ati ons in the S tate' s mot ion to adj udi cat e g uil t s eeks rev iew of the t ri al cour

t' s d eci si on to adju dicate g uilt).
Hav ing no jurisdi cti on to co nsi der appel lan t’ s s ole poi nt of er ro r, we di smi ss the appeal for want o f jur is dicti on. Phyn es v. State, 828 S.W .2d 1, 2 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 92); Dr ew v. Sta te, 942 S.W .2d 98, 99 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 19 97, no pe t.).

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice Do not p ubl is h.