Hector Rancon Sandoval v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

Annotate this Case

NO. 12-05-00186-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

HECTOR RANCON SANDOVAL, APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Hector Rancon Sandoval appeals the trial court s order revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision. Appellant raises two issues on appeal challenging evidentiary sufficiency. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Background

Appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault, a second degree felony, on February 7, 2005. On March 7, 2005, the trial court found that the evidence substantiated Appellant s guilt. However, pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years. On March 24, 2005, the State filed a motion to adjudicate and revoke Appellant s community supervision based on its assertions that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. Specifically, the State asserted that Appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision by committing a terroristic threat against his probation officer, David Wood. The court conducted a hearing on the motion on April 22, 2005.


At the hearing, Appellant pleaded true that he was the same person placed on deferred adjudication, but pleaded not true that he violated his probation by committing a terroristic threat against Wood. The State called Wood, a community supervision officer for Smith County, who testified about Appellant s failure to comply with the terms of his community supervision as alleged in the revocation motion. Specifically, Wood stated that Appellant made a threat against him by saying that he noticed there was no security at Wood s office and that somebody could do something like what happened at the courthouse the other day. 1 When Wood asked Appellant what he meant, he said, Well, not me. I m a good person. I wouldn t do something like that. But it could happen. While patting his black backpack, Appellant then said, I carry my backpack with me everywhere. Wood testified that he felt threatened and that Appellant implied he had a weapon in his bag.

Appellant then testified on his own behalf. He denied carrying a weapon or that he intended to cause Wood any harm or any fear of harm. After considering a presentence investigation report, the court found that Appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. Consequently, the court revoked Appellant s community supervision and sentenced him to imprisonment for twenty years. This appeal followed.

Adjudication of Guilt

In two issues, Appellant contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court s revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to show that he violated his community supervision by committing a terroristic threat against his community supervisor officer. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a defendant may not appeal a trial court s determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt after a trial court concludes that the defendant failed to comply with the conditions of community supervision. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005). Thus, Appellant s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not appealable because it relates solely to the determination by the court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. See Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Tatum v. State, 166 S.W.3d 362, 363-64 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied). Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of whether the trial court erred in revoking Appellant s deferred adjudication community supervision.

Disposition

We lack jurisdiction to consider Appellant s two issues. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered May 26, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)


1 A disgruntled defendant opened gunfire on the Smith County Courthouse on February 24, 2005, killing two people and injuring several others.