Gonzales, Ramiro v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 143rd District Court of Ward County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

)

RAMIRO GONZALES, ) No. 08-01-00239-CR

)

Appellant, ) Appeal from

)

v. ) 143rd District Court

)

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ) of Ward County, Texas

)

Appellee. ) (TC# 99-09-04202-CRW)

O P I N I O N

Ramiro Gonzales appeals his conviction for aggravated assault. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered a negotiated plea of guilty. The trial court found that the evidence substantiated Appellant=s guilt, but deferred adjudicating his guilt, and placed him on community supervision for a term of ten years. The trial court subsequently adjudicated Appellant=s guilt upon finding he had violated a condition of community supervision and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a term of twelve years. We affirm.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainousv. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). A copy of counsel=s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication community supervision is first imposed. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Appellant did not pursue such an appeal, and in fact, could not have appealed from his original guilty plea because he waived the right to appeal. Further, Appellant is not permitted to appeal any matters related to the trial court=s determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. See Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 42.12, ' 5(b)(Vernon Supp. 2002). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel=s brief, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

October 17, 2002

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)