Leopoldo Gonzalez v. State of Texas--Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-01-00071-CR
Leopoldo GONZALEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1995-CR-0878
Honorable Mary Rom n, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. L pez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 23, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Leopoldo Gonzalez pled guilty to a felony and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision in accordance with the terms of his plea bargain agreement. Gonzalez seeks to appeal the trial court's judgment adjudicating his guilt and sentencing him to eight years confinement.

In his brief, Gonzalez raises two points of error, asserting: (1) article 42.12 is unconstitutional and the evidence is insufficient to prove that he violated a condition of his probation; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to testimony regarding Gonzalez's blood alcohol level. On April 18, 2001, we issued an order noting the limitations on the issues this court has jurisdiction to address in Gonzalez's appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, 2001 WL 321579 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Morton v. State, 935 S.W.2d 904, 907-08 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).

Gonzalez responded to our show cause order claiming rule 25.2(b)(3) is inapplicable. Gonzalez cites two cases from this court as authority for his assertion. See Duke v. State, 2 S.W.3d 512, 514 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Jackson v. State, 915 S.W.2d 104, 105 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). However, Gonzalez's reliance on those cases is misplaced. Both of those cases involved appeals from the revocation of community supervision that did not involve the adjudication of guilt. Rule 25.2(b)(3) is not applicable to those appeals. See Feagin v. State, 967 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Manganello v. State, 915 S.W.2d 158, 159 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Gonzalez's appeal, however, involved the adjudication of guilt based on the State's motion to revoke his deferred adjudication community supervision. Both rule 25.2(b)(3) and article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure limit our jurisdiction under these circumstances. As a result, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the issues raised in Gonzalez's brief. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d at 714-15; Morton v. State, 935 S.W.2d at 907-08; Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH