Angela Weaver v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

Annotate this Case
Download PDF In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-07-523 CR ____________________ ANGELA WEAVER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 94228 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Angela Weaver pled guilty to tampering with a governmental record. See T EX. P EN. C ODE A NN. § 37.10(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2007).1 The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Weaver guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Weaver on community supervision for four years, and 1 Although the Legislature has amended this section since the date of Weaverâ s offense, the amendments do not change the elements of Weaverâ s offense or the range of punishment for her crime. Therefore, we cite the current version. 1 assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Weaverâ s unadjudicated community supervision. Weaver pled â trueâ to five violations of the conditions of her community supervision. The trial court found that Weaver violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Weaver guilty of tampering with a governmental record, and assessed punishment at eighteen years of confinement. Weaver then filed this appeal, in which she raises one issue for our consideration. We affirm. In her sole issue on appeal, Weaver asserts that the trial courtâ s written plea admonishments incorrectly advised her regarding the punishment range, which rendered her guilty plea involuntary and affected her substantial rights. The trial courtâ s written plea admonishments advised Weaver that the charge to which she pled guilty was a state jail felony that carried a punishment range of six months to two years of confinement in a state jail facility. In Weaverâ s case, tampering with a governmental record was a second-degree felony that carried a punishment range of two to twenty years of confinement. See T EX. P EN. C ODE A NN. § 37.10(c)(2); see also id. § 12.33(a) (Vernon 2003). Weaver acknowledges in her brief that she did not appeal the trial courtâ s decision when the trial court placed her on deferred adjudication community supervision. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding only in an appeal taken when the trial court first imposed deferred adjudication community supervision. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Weaverâ s complaint arises from her conviction and punishment, not the revocation of her community supervision. Therefore, she had to appeal within thirty days of May 23, 2005, which was the date on which the trial court placed her on community supervision. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 26.2(a)(1) (When no motion for new trial is filed, a defendant must appeal within thirty days after sentence is imposed or suspended.). Weaver did not timely appeal the trial courtâ s order placing her on deferred adjudication community supervision; therefore, she may not raise an issue in this appeal regarding the sufficiency of the trial courtâ s admonishments during the original plea proceeding or the voluntariness of her guilty plea. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the trial courtâ s judgment. AFFIRMED. STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on April 22, 2008 Opinion Delivered May 7, 2008 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 3