Fronshua Ramone Washington v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 182nd District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 10, 2010. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ___________________ NO. 14-10-00210-CR ___________________ FRONSHUA WASHINGTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 182nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1116217 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant entered a plea of guilty to robbery. The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant under community supervision for five years. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate. Appellant entered a plea of true to seven allegations of violating his conditions of community supervision, and not true to three other allegations. A hearing was held and the trial court found all allegations true and proceeded to adjudicate guilt. On February 1, 2010, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty (20) years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and fined appellant $500. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. The only issue raised in appellant s brief relates to his original plea of guilty. Specifically, appellant claims he was not properly admonished and therefore his plea was not involuntary. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding only in an appeal taken when the deferred adjudication community supervision is first imposed. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Issues relating to the original plea proceeding may not be raised after community supervision is revoked and appellant is adjudicated. Id. Appellant cannot challenge the voluntariness of his original plea of guilt after the trial court has adjudicated guilt. See Arreola v. State, 207 S.W.3d 387, 389 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). This appeal is untimely as to the sole issue raised by appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Brown, Sullivan, and Christopher. Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 2
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.
