Deforest Depree Williams v. State

Opinion filed June 14, 2007 Opinion filed June 14, 2007 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-05-00318-CR ________ DEFOREST DEPREE WILLIAMS, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 142nd District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR28351 O P I N I O N Deforest Depree Williams appeals from his conviction of the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child that resulted when the trial court granted the State=s motion to revoke his deferred adjudication community supervision and proceed with an adjudication of guilt. He contends in two issues that he was incompetent to stand trial and, therefore, unable to knowingly and intelligently waive his rights and enter a guilty plea and that he was incompetent to stand trial so that the trial court erred when it held a hearing and revoked his deferred adjudication community supervision. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Williams contends in issue one that he was incompetent to stand trial and was, therefore, unable to knowingly and intelligently waive his rights and enter a guilty plea. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication community supervision is first imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Therefore, we decline to address the merits of this claim. We overrule issue one. Williams contends in issue two that the trial court erred when it held a hearing and revoked his deferred adjudication community supervision because he was incompetent to stand trial. An appellant whose deferred adjudication community supervision has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process. Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). We have applied this rule with respect to an appellant=s contention that he was incompetent to stand trial. See Nava v. State, 110 S.W.3d 491, 493 (Tex. App.CEastland 2003, no pet.). Williams has made no response to the State=s contention that we are without jurisdiction to consider the two issues he raises in this appeal. We overrule issue two. Because we lack jurisdiction of the two issues raised by Williams, we dismiss this appeal. See Manuel, 994 S.W.2d at 660; Connolly, 983 S.W.2d at 741; and Nava, 110 S.W.3d at 493. PER CURIAM June 14, 2007 Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: McCall, J., Strange, J., and Hill, J.[1] [1]John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth sitting by assignment.