Larry Wayne Smith v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 265th District Court of Dallas County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Larry Wayne Smith

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-01-00373-CR B Appeal from Dallas County

State of Texas

Appellee

This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. Appellant originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation and pleas of true to both enhancement allegations. A plea bargain agreement was not entered. The trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for 10 years. At the hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, appellant entered a plea of true to the State=s allegations. The trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and assessed punishment at confinement for 25 years. We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he states that he has diligently reviewed all pertinent information in this case and has concluded that there is no reversible error. Counsel conscientiously details the proceedings in the trial court and states that appellant=s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made, that trial counsel afforded reasonably effective assistance, and that there are no arguable grounds upon which to base an appeal.

Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. We note that appellant entered a plea of true to the State=s allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2002) precludes an appeal challenging the trial court=s determination to proceed with the adjudication of guilt. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The record reflects that appellant was afforded reasonably effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). The record further reflects no jurisdictional defects. The punishment assessed was the minium authorized under TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2002). We agree that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

July 18, 2002

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.