James Alfred Singleton, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 8th District Court of Delta County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-06-00092-CR
______________________________
JAMES ALFRED SINGLETON, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court
Delta County, Texas
Trial Court No. 6686
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 12, 2005, James Alfred Singleton, Jr. pleaded guilty to committing the offense of retaliation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 36.06 (Vernon Supp. 2006). The trial court accepted Singleton's plea and found the evidence substantiated his guilt; but, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and released Singleton to community supervision for a period of two years. On November 17, 2005, the State filed an application to proceed with an adjudication of guilt in the underlying matter. This application was amended on January 25, 2006. The trial court subsequently adjudicated Singleton's guilt and assessed his punishment at ten years' imprisonment.

Singleton now appeals, asserting he received ineffective assistance of counsel during either the original guilty plea proceeding or during the adjudication proceeding because his trial counsel should not have allowed him to either plead guilty to the original crime or plead "true" to violating the terms and conditions of his community supervision agreement with the trial court. We, however, have determined that we need not reach the issue presented in as much as another issue--a jurisdictional bar--prevents our resolving Singleton's point of error.

The record before us shows Singleton affirmatively waived his right to appeal the trial court's judgment revoking community supervision. In this waiver, Singleton states he understands his appellate rights, but he prefers to "accept as final the judgment of conviction and sentence . . . ." Singleton also requests that he "be allowed to commence serving the same without further delay . . . ."

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently affirmed that "a valid waiver of appeal, whether negotiated or non-negotiated, will prevent a defendant from appealing without the consent of the trial court." Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Such is the case here. The record before us affirmatively demonstrates Singleton neither sought nor obtained the trial court's permission to appeal. The waiver itself demonstrates he knowingly, intelligently, and willingly waived his right to appeal. Accordingly, we must conclude that Singleton's waiver of appeal is binding and deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider his point of error. Accord id. at 623.

For the reasons stated, we dismiss Singleton's appeal.

 

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

 

Date Submitted: April 3, 2007

Date Decided: April 10, 2007

 

Do Not Publish