## IN TH E C OU RT OF C RI MIN A L A PP EA LS O F T E XAS Nos. PD-1157-06, PD-1158- 06, PD-1159-06, PD-1160-06, PD-1161-06 & PD-1162-06
RO B ERT C. E DWA RD S, JR. , App e lla nt
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON DI SCR ETI ONARY REVI EW OF CASES 01 -0 4- 00 96 6- CR, 01 -0 4- 00 96 7- CR, 01 -0 4- 00 96 8- CR, 01 -0 4- 00 96 9- CR, 01 -0 4- 00 97 0- CR & 01 -0 4- 00 97 1- CR OF T HE F I RST C OURT OF APPEAL S, HARRI S COUNTY
W O M ACK , J., delive red the opinion of the Court, in w hich K EL L ER , P.J., and M

EYERS , P RICE , K EAS L ER , H ERV EY , and H O L C O MB , JJ., joined. J

OHN S ON , J., filed a concurring opinion, in whi ch C OCHRAN , J., joined. We gr anted r eview of

the issue, whethe r a tria l court has jurisdiction to proce ed on an
ame nd e d mo tio n to a dju dic ate guil t f ile d a ft e r t

he te rm of de fe rr e d- a dju dic atio n c omm un ityEdwar ds - 2

W e g r ant ed r evi ew of

t he ques t i on: W het her t he C our t of Ap peal s mi s i nt er pret ed t he di f f er enc e bet ween 1 pr oce edi n g on a modi f i ed mot i on t o r ev ok e an d n ot h av i n g j u r i s di ct i on t o pr oce ed on a mot i on f i l ed af t er t h e t er m of s u per v i s i on h as e x pi r ed. supervision has expired. We hold that appeal of this iss ue wa s not permitted by the statute that 1 was in ef fec t at the time of the a djudication. The a ppellant was indicte d for a g g ravated assault in 1995 and f or burg lary

of a ha bitation wi th i nte nt t o c omm it a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult in 1 99 6. On

July 16 , 1 99 6, he ple a de d guil ty to b oth offe nses and plea ded “tr

ue” to pa ragraphs e nhancingthe offe nses with prior convic tions for
ars on . T he tr ia l c ourt

de fe rr e d a dju dic atio n o f guil t and pla c e d th e a

pp e lla nt o n c omm

un ity
su pe rv isi on fo r e ight ye ars . On Octobe r 16, 2003, the a ppellant was c harg ed with two counts of indec ency with a child. Six day s later, a lleg ing the appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision by committing the two indec ency offe nses, the State filed a Motion to Adjudi cate Guilt on the
a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult and burg lary of fe ns e s. The State filed a

n Amended Motion to Adjudicate Guilt in the burg lary case on J anuar

y 29, 2004 and in the ag g ravated assault ca se on April 2, 2004. This pair of amende d motions alleg ed seve ral ne w violations based on the a ppellant’s possessingchild pornography , but they omitted the indecenc y

alleg ations that formed the basis of the orig inal motion. On Ap ri l 7, 20 04 , th e a

pp e lla nt w a s in dic te d o n tw o c ounts of a g g ra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hild. On August 25, 2004, about one month after the expiration of the appe llant’s term of supervision, the State filed a Second Amende d Motion to Adjudi cate Guilt in each of the ag g ravated assault and bur g lary case s. This pair of motions included the alleg ations from theEdwar ds - 3

A rti cle 4 2 .12 , § 5 (b ) o f t he C o d e o f

C rimina l P ro ce d ure ha s b ee n a m en d ed si nc e the C o urt o f A p p ea l s’ 2 d e c isio n . orig inal motions and the first amende d motions, and added the a g g ravated sexual assault char g es a s w e ll a s n e w c ha

rg e s p e rt a ini ngto a

dif fe re nt v ic tim
. The a ppellant waive d his right to a jur y trial on the indec ency

and ag g ravated sexual assault cha

rg es. In September 2004, the se four offe nses wer e tried in the same proc eedingas the adjudication of guilt on the origina l ag g ravated assault and burg lary charg es pursua

nt to the State’s Second Ame nded Motion. The trial c ourt found the a ppellant guilty

of both counts of indece ncy with a child and both counts of a g g ravated sexual assault of a c hild, and adjudicate d him guilty

of the a g g ravated assault and burg lary offe nses. The tria l judge imposed life sentenc es for e ach of

the six offe nses, three of which w ere to run conc urre ntly , afte r which the rema ining three concur

rent sente nces w ere to be serve d. On a pp e a l, t he a pp e lla nt c la ime d th at th e Se c on d Ame nd e d M oti on to A dju dic ate Gu ilt was void bec ause it wa s filed af ter the te rm of super

vision ex pired, a

nd there fore , the trial cour t lacke d jurisdiction to convict and sentenc e him pursuant to that motion. The State cha lleng ed whether the applica

ble ver sion of Article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Proce dure, the 2
c omm un ity su pe rv isi on statut e , p e rm itt e d s uc h a

n a pp e a l. The Court of Appe als noted that normally the then-e ffe ctive ver sion of Article 42.12, Section 5(b) ba

rre d appellate revie w of a trial court’ s determination to adjudicate a de fenda nt’s guil t. On v i o l ati on of a c ondition of community supervision . . ., the def

endant may

be arr ested a nd detained . . . . T he defen d an t is entitled to a hear ing limited to the deter mination by

the cour t of whethe r it proce eds with an adjudication of guilt on the orig inal char g e. No appeal may betaken from this determination
. Af t eranEdwar ds - 4

E d w a rd s v . S ta te , N o. 01- 04- 00966- CR e t a l
. , 2006 T ex . App. LEX I S 3404, a t * 5- 6 ( T ex . App. –H ou s t on 3 [ 1s t D i s t . ] Apr
. 27, 2006) ( n ot de s i g n at ed f or pu bl i ca t i on ) ( ci t i n g Act of M ay 20, 1975, 64t h Le g . , R. S. , c h
. 231, § 1, 1 9 7 5 T e x . G e n . L a w s 5 7 2 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ) (a m e n d e d 2 0 0 7 ) (c u rr e n t ve rs io n a t C O D E C R IM . P R OC . a rt. 4 2 .1 2 , § 5 (b)))
. 1 7 6 S.W
. 3 d 82 9 (T ex. C r. A p p . 20 0 5 ).

4 6 5 S.W
. 3 d 66 4 (T ex. C r. A p p . 20 0 1 ). 5 Edw ar ds , 20 0 6 T ex. A p p . LE X IS 3 4 0 4 , at * 7 (quo t i ng H ogans , 17 6 S.W
. 3 d , at 83 2 n. 6 ). 6 I d. , at * 7
- 8 (ci t i ng N ix , 65 S.W
. 3 d , at 66 7
- 6 8 ). 7 I d. , at * 8 (quo t i ng N ix , 65 S.W
. 3 d , at 66 7
- 6 8 ). 8 I d. , a t * 8- 9. 9 a dju dic atio n of guil t, a ll p ro c e e din g s, inc lud inga sse ssm e nt o f p un ishme nt, pronoun ceme nt of sentenc e, grantingof community supervision, and de fenda nt’s appea l continue as if the a djudication of guilt had not been def err ed. 3 The Court, howe ver, r ead our opinions in Hoga ns v . S

tate and Nix

v . S tate as 4 5
rec og nizi ngan exception for jur isdictional challeng es. In Hogans , we sa id that the statutory bar

“ inc lud e s a ll c omp la int s r e late d to the tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on to p ro c e e d to an a dju dic atio n o f guil t, except for those c halleng ing the trial court’ s jurisdiction.” And in Nix , w e he ld t hat th e “ vo id 6 jud g me nt” e xce pti on

to t he g e ne ra l r

ule , p ro hib iti nga

pp e a l f ro m a re vo c atio n p ro c e e din gto
atta c k th e or ig ina l pl e a , a pp lie s to de fe rr e d a dju dic atio n p ro c e e din g s. “ Th e ‘v oid jud g me nt’ 7
e xce pti on a c kn ow le dg e s th at ‘ the re are so me ra re sit uatio ns in whic h a

tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt i s a c c or de d n o r e sp e c t du e to a c omp le te la c k o f p ow e r t o r e nd e r t he jud g me nt i n q

ue sti on . Avo id judgme nt is a “nullity ” and c an be attacked at any time.’” 8 Relying on Hoga ns and Nix , the Court conclude d that the appe al was pe rmissible and analy zed the appellant’ s claim under the community supervision statute. The statute pr ovides 9 that a trial c ourt reta ins jurisdiction t o proce ed on a de fenda nt’s adjudication of guilt if, beforeEdwar ds - 5

I d. , at * 8
- 9 (ci t i ng C O D E C R IM . P R OC . art . 42
. 1 2 , § 5 (h) ). 10 I d. , at * 9 (ci t i ng C O D E C R IM . P R OC . art . 42
. 1 2 , § 2 1 (b)). 11 I d. , at * 9 (r ef

erri ng t o t he o ri gi nal M o t i o n t o A d judicat e G ui l t , f

i l ed on O ct . 22 , 20 0 3 ). 12 I d. , a t * 9. 13 Ib id
. 14 1 9 5 S.W
. 3 d 70 8 (T ex. C r. A p p . 20 0 6 ). 15 the term of c ommunity

supervision expires, the State files its motion t o adjudicate guilt and a capia s is issued for the def endant’ s arr est. The State may amend its motion any

time up to seven 10 d ay s b ef o re th e a d j u d i ca t i o nh eari n g. 11 Ap ply ingthe statut e to t

he pr e se nt c a se , th e Court sa id i t w a s und isp ute d th at th e State moved to adjudicate the orig inal ag g ravated assault and burg lary offe nses prior to the e x piration of the a ppellant’s ter

m of community

supervision. Havingso invoked the trial cour t’s 12 j ur i s d i c t i o n , th e S t at e th e np r o p e r l y f i l e d i t s S e c o n d

A m e n d e d

M o t i o nm o r e th ans e v e nd ays be fo re the be g inn ingof

the c omb ine d a dju dic atio n h e ari ngand tr ia l. Th e Court

of Ap pe a ls 13 there fore conclude d that the trial cour t had jurisdiction to adjudicate the a ppellant base d on the Se c on d Ame nd e d M oti on to A dju dic ate Gu ilt
. 14 The a ppellant asks this Court to decide whe ther a jurisdictional bar should have preve nted the trial cour

t from adjudicating his guilt and sentencinghim pursuant to the Second Amende d Motion. After the Court of Appe als rende red its opinion in this case , we de cided Da v is v . S tate , in wh ic h w e sq

ua re ly a dd re sse d th e qu e sti on

of wh e the r t he re e xiste d a

jurisd ic tio na l e xce pti on

to the Section 5(b) ba

r on appe alinga trial c ourt’s dete rmination to adjudicate guilt. We held that 15Edwar ds - 6

I d. , a t 712. 16 I d. , a t 711. 17 I d. , a t 712. 18 C O D E C R IM . P R OC . art . 42
. 1 2 , § 5 (b) (emp hasi s ad d ed ). 19 the statute allowe d no such exception. In Da v is , we e x plained that the languag e of 16 Hogans

– qu o t e d

b y th e C o urto f

Ap p e a l s i nth e p r e s e n tc a s e
– w a s m e r e l y dicta beca

use the issue had not bee n prese nted in that case
. We also clarif ied that the “void judgment” doctr ine of Nix 17
c ou ld b e us e d o nly

to c ha lle ng e the or ig ina l pr oc e e din g s im po sin gde fe rr e d a dju dic atio n, no t to c ha lle ng e jurisd ic tio n to a dju dic ate guil t. 18 In light of our

decision in Da v is , w e ho ld t hat th e Se c tio n 5 (b ) p ro hib iti on a g a ins t appea ling f

rom the dete rmination to adjudicate guilt ex tends to jurisdictional questions li ke the appellant’ s. There fore , we de cline to addr ess the issue of the scope of the trial cour

t’s jurisdiction as no appe al lies in this case. Ne ither will we a ddress whe ther the a ppellant’s cla im is i ndeed one of jurisdiction. Even if it wer e not, the statutory bar w ould apply

to prec lude re view. As we note d above, Article 42.12, Sec tion 5(b) was a mended dur ing the 2007 L eg islative
se ssi on to a llo w a

pp e a ls f ro m th e de c isi on

to a dju dic ate guil t. On violation of a c onditi o n o f comm unity supervision . . ., the def

endant may

be arr ested a nd detained . . . . T h e d ef en dant is entitled to a hea ringlimit ed to the deter mination by

the cour t of whethe r it proce eds wit h an adjudication of guilt on the orig inal char g e. This determination is revie wable in the same manne r as a revoc ation hearing conduc ted under Se ction 21 of this arti cle in a casein which an adjudication of guilt had not

been de ferred . A fter an adj ud ic atio n o f guil t, a ll p ro c e e din g s, including a ssessment of pu nishment, pronounceme nt of sentenc e, grantingof community

supervision, and de fen d an t’s appea l continue as if the a djudication of guilt had not been def

err ed. 19Edwar ds - 7

The amended statute took e ffe ct on J uly 15, 2007, and the ne w provision applies only to a hearing c onducted on or

afte r that date . The c hang e ther efor e does not a pply to the appellant’ s case . We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he Court of Ap pe a ls. Deliver ed F ebrua

ry 6, 2008. Do not publish.