William Rivas v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 222nd District Court of Deaf Smith County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-06-0009-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C MAY 4, 2006 ______________________________ WILLIAM RIVAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY; NO. CR-04I-129; HON. ROLAND SAUL, PRESIDING _______________________________ Memorandum Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, William Rivas, appeals from the trial court s adjudication of his guilt for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon by contending that his trial counsel was ineffective. Counsel was purportedly ineffective because he did not obtain two expert witnesses. The experts could have been used, he continues, at the hearing upon the State s motion to adjudicate guilt to show that he did not commit the crime resulting in the decision to adjudicate. For the reason stated below, we dismiss the appeal. No appeal may be taken from the trial court s decision to adjudicate guilt. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC . ANN . art. 42.12 ยง5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005); Hogans v. State, 176 S.W.3d 829, 832 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (involving a claim of ineffective assistance). Given this rule, a defendant may not assert, on direct appeal, that his attorney denied him the effective assistance of counsel during the proceeding to adjudicate. Hogans v. State, 176 S.W.3d at 833. Here, appellant asserts that his attorney should have acquired two experts to prove that he did not commit the crime upon which the trial court founded its decision to adjudicate appellant s guilt. As posited, trial counsel s supposed ineffectiveness is offered as a way to attack the decision to adjudicate. And, because it is, we have no jurisdiction to review the matter. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2
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.
