Elreed Wilson, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-02-0281-CR
NO. 07-02-0282-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
MARCH 7, 2003
______________________________
ELREED WILSON, JR., APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;
NOS. 78432 & 82502; HONORABLE LARRY GIST, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.*
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
*
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
1
Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Pursuant to plea bargains for possession of a controlled substance in cause number
78432, and for possession of marihuana in cause number 82502, appellant was granted
deferred adjudication and placed on community supervision for five years. Upon the
State’s motions to revoke for violations of the conditions of community supervision,
appellant was adjudicated guilty in both causes and punishment was assessed at four
years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
in cause number 78432, and two years confinement in a state jail facility in cause number
82502. By one point of error, appellant contends the State failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that his consent to search his vehicle was freely and voluntarily given.
Based upon the rationale expressed herein, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
The State contends that pursuant to article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure, no appeal may be taken from the trial court’s decision to adjudicate
guilt. We agree. Article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
expressly denies a defendant the right to appeal from a trial court’s determination to
adjudicate guilt. Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999); Phynes v.
State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 941-42
(Tex.Cr.App. 1992). An appeal of all proceedings after an adjudication of guilt, however,
is not foreclosed by article 42.12, section 5(b) (i.e. assessment of punishment,
pronouncement of sentence). An appeal cannot be had to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the trial court’s adjudication of guilt. Connolly, 983 S.W.2d at 741.
2
Thus, because appellant does not present a challenge to any post-adjudication
proceedings, we have no jurisdiction to entertain his complaint challenging the sufficiency
of the evidence.
Accordingly, the purported appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
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.
