Court Opinion

ID: 2919205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 00:14:53.188304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:34:54.771665
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-99-597-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
               ___________________________________________________________________

LARRY LEE GANTT,	Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,	Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 138th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez
Opinion by Chief Justice Seerden

	Larry Lee Gantt, appellant, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault,(1) but 

received deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten
years.  The State subsequently filed a motion for adjudication of guilt alleging
that appellant had violated certain conditions of his community supervision. 
The trial court held a hearing on the motion.  At that time, the court
considered and denied several motions urged by appellant.  The court then
proceeded to adjudicate appellant guilty and sentenced him to ten years
imprisonment.  

	Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he
concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.(2)  The brief
meets the requirement that counsel present a professional evaluation of the
record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18
L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). 

	No appeal may be taken from the determination to adjudicate a
defendant guilty after he has been placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon 2000). 
Even appeals stemming from claims of due process violations are subject to
this limitation.  Leal v. State, 962 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi
1998, no pet.).  Accordingly, we may not consider the issues raised in
appellant's brief.  See Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1999). 

	We agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The
appeal is DISMISSED.

  
	ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 29th day of June, 2000.

1.   Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02 (a) (Vernon 2000). 
2.   A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant, and
appellant was advised of his right to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has
been filed.