Derrick Shawn Culberson v. State

11th Court of Appeals Eastland, Texas Opinion Derrick Shawn Culberson Appellant Vs. Nos. 11-02-00307-CR & 11-02-00308-CR B Appeals from Dallas County State of Texas Appellee These are appeals from two judgments adjudicating guilt. Derrick Shawn Culberson originally entered pleas of guilty to the January 25, 1998, aggravated robbery[1] and the January 31, 1998, robbery[2] of his mother. Appellant also entered pleas of true to the enhancement allegations that he had been convicted in 1989 and in 1990 of burglary of a building. Plea bargain agreements were not reached. In each case, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for 10 years. At the hearing on the State=s amended motions to adjudicate guilt, appellant entered pleas of true to the State=s Allegation No. 9, that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by failing to “faithfully participate” in the program Aftercare following his release from SAFPF. In each case, the trial court found that four of the State=s allegations (including No. 9) were true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for life.[3] We affirm the convictions. Appellant=s retained counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in each case. Counsel states that, after a thorough review of the complete record in each case, he has concluded that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. Counsel further states in his motions that he has delivered a copy of the motions to appellant and has advised appellant of his rights to object to the motions and to ask for an extension of time in which to file pro se briefs. Counsel has complied with the requirements of McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988); Knotts v. State, 31 S.W.3d 821 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet=n); Nguyen v. State, 11 S.W.3d 376 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet=n); Pena v. State, 932 S.W.2d 31 (Tex.App. - El Paso 1995, no pet=n); Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.App. - Waco 1994, pet=n ref=d). Appellant has requested and received two extensions of time in which to file his brief. As of this date, appellant=s briefs have not been filed. We have reviewed the entire record before us and agree that the appeals are without merit. We note that appellant entered pleas of true to the State=s allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003) precludes an appeal challenging the trial court=s determination to proceed with the adjudication of guilt. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The records reflect that appellant was properly admonished concerning his original pleas of guilty and support the trial court=s conclusions that appellant knowingly and voluntarily entered his pleas of guilty. The records further reflect that there are no jurisdictional defects. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. PER CURIAM September 26, 2003 Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and Wright, J., and McCall, J. [1]Cause No. 11-02-00308-CR. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 29.03 (Vernon 2003) defines the offense and declares it to be a first degree felony. [2]Cause No. 11-02-00307-CR. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 29.02 (Vernon 2003) defines the offense and declares it to be a second degree felony. [3]TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 12.42(d) (Vernon 2003) provides that the range of punishment for a person convicted of a felony and who has two prior felony convictions shall be confinement for life or a term of not more than 99 years and not less than 25 years.