X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed the appellant on community supervision for ten years. The court subsequently adjudicated the appellant’s guilt and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment. The appellant contends in two points that: 1. the court erred by accepting his guilty plea without admonishing him that he would have to register as a sex offender; and 2. he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the adjudication hearing. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellant’s first point concerns the admonishments the court gave him prior to accepting his guilty plea in the July 2001 hearing which led to the deferred adjudication order. The appellant should have made this complaint in an appeal from the deferred adjudication order. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). His decision to do so at this juncture is untimely. The appellant avers in his second point that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the hearing on the state’s motion to adjudicate. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.12 �5(b) prohibits the appellant from raising these contentions on appeal. The court dismisses his second point. Some courts would dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court disagrees with this approach. The Court of Criminal Appeals has plainly and repeatedly stated that, “[o]nce a notice of appeal has been timely filed in a case, the Court of Appeals obtains jurisdiction over the case.” Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Thus, the appellant’s notice of appeal conferred jurisdiction on this court. Although the court has jurisdiction, the court may not address either of the claims he asserts. OPINION:Per curiam; before Gray, C.J., Vance and Reyna, JJ. DISSENT: Gray, C.J. “The common issue I address in these appeals is whether, having determined we have no jurisdiction to review any issue raised, we affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. We have not reviewed any aspect of the trial courts’ judgments, so, the proper judgment of this Court for each case is to dismiss the appeal. Because the Court affirms the judgments without reviewing them, I respectfully dissent.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.