Jonathan Pierre Prade v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-99-00911-CR
Jonathan Pierre PRADE,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1993-CR-3541-B
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 4, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Jonathan Pierre Prade appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation and adjudication of guilt. In one issue, he claims the trial court erred in permitting the State to use an outcry witness, where the testimony was unreliable and the child victim was unavailable. We dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 1994, Prade, pursuant to a plea bargain, pleaded guilty to an aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon charge. The trial court deferred adjudication and placed Prade on probation. One condition of his probation provided that Prade was prohibited from committing or being convicted of any offense.

On September 13, 1999, the State filed a motion to revoke Prade's probation, alleging he violated a condition of his probation by committing the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. Prade pleaded not true to the State's allegation. The trial court adjudicated Prade guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced him, within the terms of the plea bargain, to ten years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division.

In one issue, Prade appeals the trial court's judgment. Specifically, he asserts the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce an outcry statement into evidence because that statement is unreliable and because the child victim was unavailable to testify.

Jurisdiction

The State contends this court lacks the jurisdiction to decide Prade's issue. We agree.

When the State alleges a defendant has violated a condition of his deferred adjudication probation, "[t]he defendant is entitled to a hearing limited to the determination by the court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. No appeal may be taken from this determination." Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2000). "[A]ny decision not related to the trial court's jurisdiction is intrinsically part of the trial court's decision to adjudicate and is therefore not appealable." Arista v. State, 2 S.W.3d 444, 445-46 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (citing Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)).

Questions of whether the trial court erred in admitting an outcry witness's statement are not jurisdictional and, therefore, are part of the decision to adjudicate guilt. See Connolly, 983 S.W.2d at 741; Arista, 2 S.W.3d at 445-46. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to address Prade's claim on appeal.

Conclusion

Because we lack the jurisdiction to address Prade's claim, we dismiss his appeal.

Karen Angelini, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH