Case Name: Frederick DANIELS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2000-10-11
Citations: 30 S.W.3d 407
Docket Number: No. 1612-99
Parties: Frederick DANIELS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.
Judges: in which MANSFIELD, KELLER, WOMACK and KEASLER, JJ., joined.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 30
Pages: 407–409

Head Matter:
Frederick DANIELS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.
No. 1612-99.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Oct. 11, 2000.
Robert P. Abbott, Coppell, for appellant.
John R. Rolater, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

Opinion:
OPINION
McCORMICK, P.J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court
in which MANSFIELD, KELLER, WOMACK and KEASLER, JJ., joined.
When a defendant's deferred adjudication "probation" for a felony offense is revoked and he is adjudicated guilty of that offense and he wants to raise appellate issues relating to the original deferred adjudication proceeding, can that defendant obtain an appellate reversal of his conviction and a new trial because the reporter's record from the original deferred adjudication proceeding has been lost?
The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of an aggravated robbery felony offense four years after appellant had been placed on deferred adjudication "probation" for that offense. On direct appeal, appellant claimed that he was entitled to a reversal of his aggravated robbery conviction and a new trial solely because the reporter's record from the original deferred adjudication proceeding was lost. Appellant claimed that the lost reporter's record from the original deferred adjudication proceeding prevented him from "examining or challenging the voluntariness of his original plea or any rulings on pretrial motions."
The Court of Appeals decided it had no jurisdiction over appellant's lost reporter's record claim because appellant had to appeal any issues relating to the original deferred adjudication proceeding at the time he was placed on deferred adjudication. We exercised our discretionary authority to review this decision.
Our appellate rules provide that a defendant is entitled to a reversal of his conviction and a new trial if, among other things, a lost or destroyed reporter's record is "necessary to the appeal's resolution." See Tex.R.App.Proc. 34.6(f)(3). In Manuel v. State, we decided that a defendant placed on deferred adjudication has to appeal issues relating to the original deferred adjudication proceeding when deferred adjudication is first imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex.Cr.App.1999); see also Sankey v. State, 3 S.W.3d 43, 45 (Tex.Cr.App.1999).
Pursuant to Manuel, the reporter's record from the original deferred adjudication proceeding is not necessary to this appeal's resolution since appellant cannot now appeal any issues relating to the original deferred adjudication proceeding. The Court of Appeals, therefore, correctly decided that it had no jurisdiction over appellant's lost reporter's record claim.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
JOHNSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which MEYERS, PRICE and HOLLAND, JJ., joined.