Stasia Manning a/k/a Stasia Lynn Manning v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-10-00068-CR _________________ STASIA MANNING a/k/a STASIA LYNN MANNING, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-02829 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION After reaching a plea bargain agreement with the State, Stasia Manning a/k/a Stasia Lynn Manning pled guilty to felony theft. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. ยง 31.03 (Vernon Supp. 2009). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Manning guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Manning on community supervision for three years, ordered Manning to pay restitution in the amount of $340, and assessed a $500 fine. The State subsequently filed its first motion to revoke Manning s unadjudicated community supervision. Manning pled true to three violations of the conditions of her community supervision. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to 1 support the State s motion to revoke but decided to hold its findings on the motion in abeyance for a year and continue Manning s community supervision, subject to certain amendments to her community supervision. Less than a year later, the State filed its second motion to revoke Manning s unadjudicated community supervision. Manning pled true to seven violations of the conditions of her community supervision. The trial court, considering both the State s current motion to revoke and its motion to revoke that was held in abeyance, found that Manning violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Manning guilty of felony theft, and assessed her punishment at fifteen months confinement. In a single issue, Manning appeals and complains that she has been denied a complete record on appeal because the reporter s record does not include a transcript from her original plea proceeding after which she was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. Manning s counsel argues that without the reporter s record from her original plea, Manning cannot receive a meaningful review of her case because her counsel is unable to determine whether or not the trial court pre-determined the sentence at the time of entry of the original plea, or made other such comments that would render the ultimate sentence insupportable. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding only in an appeal timely filed after the imposition of the deferred adjudication community supervision. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Manning did not timely appeal the trial 2 court s order placing her on deferred adjudication community supervision. In a case that concerned a lost reporter s record, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that [p]ursuant to Manuel, the reporter s record from the original deferred adjudication proceeding is not necessary to this appeal s resolution since appellant cannot now appeal any issues relating to the original deferred adjudication proceeding. Daniels v. State, 30 S.W.3d 407, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Likewise, the reporter s record of Manning s original plea proceeding is unnecessary to the resolution of her appeal. Manning s complaints regarding any issues related to her original plea proceedings were required to be appealed after the trial court imposed community supervision. See Manuel, 994 S.W.2d at 661-62. Consequently, the reporter s record from that proceeding is not necessary to this appeal s resolution. See Daniels, 30 S.W.3d at 408; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f)(3) (providing an appellant with a new trial when a reporter s record is lost or destroyed if the portion of the record lost or destroyed is necessary to the appeal s resolution ). We overrule Manning s sole issue and affirm the trial court s judgment. AFFIRMED. ________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on September 15, 2010 Opinion Delivered October 6, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 3
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.
