Sherrill Nealy v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 137th District Court of Lubbock County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-02-0333-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C JANUARY 8, 2003 ______________________________ SHERRILL NEALY, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2001-437,202; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE _______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Pursuant to a guilty plea for felony aggravated assault, appellant Sherrill Nealy was granted deferred adjudication and placed on community supervision for five years. At a 1 TEX . R. APP . P. 47.4. hearing on the State s motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, the trial court heard evidence on numerous allegations and adjudicated appellant guilty of the original charge and assessed punishment at ten years confinement. By a sole issue, appellant contends she was denied effective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to adjudicate. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal. Based upon the rationale expressed herein, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 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 cannot be had to challenge: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's adjudication of guilt, (2) a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, (3) a claim that the conditions of community supervision are too vague, and (4) a claim that a variance exists between the community supervision conditions in the order and those alleged in the motion to adjudicate. See Phynes, 828 S.W.2d at 2, and Olowosuko, 826 S.W.2d at 942. Thus, we are without jurisdiction to consider appellant s issue. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Don H. Reavis 2 Justice Do not publish. 3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.
