MARIA CHRISTINA GRAVES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed January 11, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-09-00429-CR
............................
MARIA CHRISTINA GRAVES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 27171CC
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Morris, O'Neill, and Fillmore
Opinion By Justice O'Neill
        Maria Christina Graves appeals following the adjudication of her guilt for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. In two points of error, appellant contends her plea was involuntary and she was not afforded a meaningful punishment hearing. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
 
        Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.07(a) (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on two years' community supervision, and assessed a $250 fine. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the terms of her community supervision by refusing to participate in the Substance Abuse Felony Program Facility (SAFPF). In a hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded not true to the allegation. The trial court found the allegation true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at eighteen months' confinement in a state jail facility.
Involuntary Plea
 
        In her first point of error, appellant contends her guilty plea was involuntary because no one reviewed the SAFPF condition of community supervision with her at the time she entered her plea. The State responds that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider appellant's complaint.
        We agree that we do not have jurisdiction to address appellant's complaint regarding her guilty plea. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues related to the original plea proceedings only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication community supervision is first imposed. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see also Clark v. State, 997 S.W.2d 365, 368 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). We overrule appellant's first point of error.
Punishment Hearing
 
        In her second point of error, appellant contends she was not afforded a meaningful punishment hearing because counsel did not call any witnesses or introduce mitigating evidence. The State responds that appellant has failed to adequately brief this issue and, alternatively, the record reflects she received a meaningful punishment hearing.
        An appellant's brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). Here, appellant's brief includes block quotes from two Texas Court of Criminal Appeals cases issued in 1992, followed by a statement that she was not afforded a meaningful punishment hearing. We conclude appellant has not adequately briefed this issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); see also Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 23 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (It is not the responsibility of an appellate court to formulate arguments for an appellant where an issue is inadequately briefed). Moreover, appellant's claim lacks merit. The record shows the trial court afforded appellant an opportunity to present witnesses and evidence during the punishment phase of the proceedings. Appellant declined to present any witnesses or evidence. We overrule appellant's second point of error.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
090429F.U05