JAMES BOLING v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 291st District Court of Dallas County

NUMBER 13-00-175-CR 
  
 
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________________

JAMES BOLING, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 291st District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Chavez
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

As part of a plea agreement, appellant, James Boling, pleaded guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child.(1) The trial court found him guilty and assessed his punishment at ten years imprisonment. The court then suspended the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision. The trial court found appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and ordered that appellant serve his original sentence of ten years imprisonment. By two points of error, appellant contends the trial court erred and abused its discretion in his original conviction by failing to grant his motion to suppress a videotape obtained from his residence documenting the sexual assault. We dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant did not appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress at the time he was found guilty and placed on community supervision. Instead, appellant waited to appeal the conviction after the trial court revoked his community supervision.

The right to appeal a conviction and punishment is accorded at the time the defendant is placed on community supervision. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 23(b) (Vernon Supp. 2000); Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). A defendant whose community supervision is revoked may only appeal the revocation. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 23(b) (Vernon Supp. 2000).

Because appellant is not appealing the revocation of his community supervision, we conclude we have no jurisdiction to consider appellant's two points of error.

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 7th day of December, 2000.

1. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 22.011 (Vernon Supp. 2000).