BILLY AYALA v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 148th District Court of Nueces County

NUMBER 13-01-006-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Ya ez, Garza, and Baird (1)

Opinion by Justice Baird

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, appellant pled guilty to the charged offense, sufficient evidence was introduced to establish appellant's guilt, the trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for a period of ten years, and assessed a fine of $500. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. Following a hearing on the State's motion, the trial judge found several of the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. We will dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

I. Jurisdiction.

A party may appeal only that which the Legislature has authorized. Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App.1981). The Legislature has provided that a defendant who pleads guilty and is placed on deferred adjudication may raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding only in an appeal taken when the trial court first orders deferred adjudication and imposes community supervision. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App.1999). If the defendant does not exercise his right to appeal at that time, no appeal may be taken from a subsequent determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003); Williams v. State, 592 S.W.2d 931, 932-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (decision to proceed with an adjudication of guilt is one of absolute nonreviewable discretion).

II. Anders Brief.

Counsel has filed an Anders brief. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Within this brief, counsel cites article 42.12, section 5(b) of the code of criminal procedure, supra, and states that there are no arguable grounds of error for purposes of appeal. We find counsel has presented a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). (2) Additionally, counsel's brief includes a certificate of service dated December 18, 2001, stating she has informed appellant of his right to review the court reporter's and clerk's records, and to file a pro se brief. No such brief has been filed.

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

CHARLES F. BAIRD,

Justice
Do not publish .

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 12th day of June, 2003.

1. Former Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Charles F. Baird assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to the government code. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 74.003 (Vernon 1998).

2. Counsel further notes that a trial judge is vested with discretion to revoke an individual's community supervision. Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.). A single violation of a condition of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Standing alone, a plea of true is sufficient to support the trial court's order of revocation. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979);Rivera v. State, 688 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.). In the instant case, appellant pled true to multiple allegations in the State's motion seeking revocation. Accordingly, there can be no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in the instant case.