Case Name: David RAMOS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2004-05-24
Citations: 153 S.W.3d 573
Docket Number: No. 07-04-0008-CR
Parties: David RAMOS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 153
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
David RAMOS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 07-04-0008-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.
May 24, 2004.
David Ramos, Abilene, pro se.
Joe Morgan Dawson, Amarillo, for appellant.
John L. Owen, Assistant District Attorney, Amarillo, for State.
Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.
. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
DON H. REAVIS, Justice.
By opinion dated March 23, 2004, this Court granted the State's motion to abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to re-certify appellant David Ramos's right of appeal based on a pre-sentence waiver of the right to appeal without a punishment recommendation. Pursuant to this Court's order, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. As relevant here, the trial court certified that appellant's case is a "plea bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal." By its conclusions of law, the trial court held appellant is procedurally barred from appealing its decision to adjudicate guilt.
Appellant had been granted deferred adjudication community supervision in exchange for his guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance. Upon the State's motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, appellant pled true to the allegations. After hearing evidence, the trial court sentenced appellant to 20 years confinement. Appellant did not present punishment evidence nor object to the sentence.
Article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure expressly denies a defendant the right to appeal from a 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). Although an appeal of all proceedings after an adjudication of guilt is not foreclosed by article 42.12, section 5(b) (ie., assessment of punishment, pronouncement of sentence), a review of the revocation hearing establishes that any possible complaints regarding post-adjudication proceedings were not preserved for review. See Tex. R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); see also Hardeman v. State, 1 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex.Cr.App.1999) and Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159, 161 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). Thus, we grant the State's motion and dismiss this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
QUINN, J., dissenting.