Williams, Alissia Amanda v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 262nd District Court of Harris County
Annotate this CaseDismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 11, 2005.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-05-00130-CR
____________
ALISSIA AMANDA WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 877,840
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant pled guilty to the offense of aggravated assault. The trial judge deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. After a hearing, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for ten years. Appellant filed a timely written notice of appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt.
On appeal, appellant challenges the trial court=s admission of hearsay testimony at the hearing on the state=s motion to adjudication appellant=s guilt. It is well settled that an appellant whose deferred adjudication probation has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process. Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 42.12 ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Appellant may only raise issues that occur after adjudication of guilt. See Ditto v. State, 988 S.W.2d 236, 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
On July 21, 2005, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court=s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed no response.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 11, 2005.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Anderson.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.