Case Name: Marissa Yvonne TREVINO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2005-04-21
Citations: 164 S.W.3d 464
Docket Number: No. 2-04-492-CR
Parties: Marissa Yvonne TREVINO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State.
Judges: PANELA: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 164
Pages: 464–466

Head Matter:
Marissa Yvonne TREVINO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State.
No. 2-04-492-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.
April 21, 2005.
David Richards, Fort Worth, for Appellant.
Tim Curry, Crim. D.A., Charles M. Mal-lín, Asst. Crim. D.A. and Chief of the Appellate Division, and Kimberley Wesley, and Kim D’Avignon, Asst. Crim. D.As., Fort Worth, for State.
PANELA: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
SUE WALKER, Justice.
Appellant Marissa Yvonne Trevino appeals the trial court's judgment adjudicating her guilty of the offense of possession of methamphetamine of one gram or more but less than four grams and sentencing her to four years' confinement. In a single point, she claims that her due process rights under the Texas Constitution were violated when her probation was revoked pursuant to code of criminal procedure article 42.12, section 5. See Tex.Code CRIM. PROC. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Appellant argues that the statute is facially unconstitutional because it implements a total restriction on appellate complaints involving the trial court's decision to adjudicate. The court of criminal appeals has held that the Texas Constitution does not provide a right to appellate review of criminal convictions; the Legislature therefore may properly limit or even deny the right to appeal a criminal conviction entirely. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); see also Henderson v. State, 132 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.). Consequently, the statutory denial of the right to appeal as set forth in article 42.12, section 5(b) is not facially unconstitutional. Phynes, 828 S.W.2d at 2. We overrule Appellant's point and affirm the trial court's judgment.
DAUPHINOT, J., filed a dissenting opinion.