Tavonti Neigale Sessions v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 294th District Court of Van Zandt County

NO. 12-04-00332-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TAVONTI NEIGALE SESSIONS, APPEAL FROM THE 294TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tavonti Neigale Sessions appeals the trial court s order revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision. Appellant raises six issues on appeal challenging evidentiary sufficiency. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Background

Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first degree felony, on February 4, 2003. The trial court found that the evidence substantiated Appellant s guilt, but deferred a finding of guilt and, instead, placed him on community supervision for ten years and assessed a $2,500.00 fine. On May 14, 2004, the State filed a motion to adjudicate and revoke Appellant s community supervision based on its assertions that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. Specifically, the State asserted that Appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision by committing theft; failing to pay court costs, probation fees, and fines; failing to perform community service; contacting minors unsupervised and without proper consent; failing to register as a sex offender; failing to complete psychological counseling; and going within one thousand yards of places where children gather. The court conducted a hearing on the motion on September 8, 2004.

At the hearing, Appellant pleaded true to eight of the twelve allegations of community supervision violations. The State called a community supervision officer who testified about Appellant s failure to comply with the terms of his community supervision as alleged in the revocation motion. Appellant then testified on his own behalf. After considering a presentence investigation report, the court found that Appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. Consequently, the court revoked Appellant s community supervision and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal followed.

Adjudication of Guilt

In six issues, Appellant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court s revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to show that he violated his community supervision by committing forgery, failing to perform community service, failing to register as a sex offender, failing to attend counseling, and violating the one thousand yard rule requirement. He further asserts that inability to pay is a defense to his failure to pay fines, court costs, and probation fees.

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a defendant may not appeal a trial court s determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt after a trial court concludes that the defendant failed to comply with the conditions of community supervision. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005). Thus, Appellant s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not appealable because it relates solely to the determination by the court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. See Hargesheimer v. State, 2006 WL 120009, at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Tatum v. State, 166 S.W.3d 362, 363-64 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied). Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of whether the trial court erred in revoking its deferred adjudication community supervision conditions.

Disposition

We lack jurisdiction to consider Appellant s six issues. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered January 31, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)