In the Matter of the Marriage of Randall Eugene Bailey and Shelby Jean Bailey--Appeal from 82nd District Court of Falls County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2006 » In the Matter of the Marriage of Randall Eugene Bailey and Shelby Jean Bailey--Appeal from 82nd District Court of Falls County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-05-00133-CV

Case Date: 12/06/2006

Plaintiff: James Hamilton

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County

Preview:James Hamilton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
228th District Court of Harris County
/**/
11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
James Hamilton
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-05-00052-CR -- Appeal from Harris County
State of Texas
Appellee
This is an appeal from the trial court s judgment adjudicating guilt. James Hamilton originally entered a plea of guilty
to the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court
deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. In its motion to
adjudicate, the State alleged ten violations of the terms and conditions of appellant s community supervision. At the
hearing, appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations of technical violations and pleas of not true to the remaining
allegations. The trial court found all the allegations to be true, revoked appellant s community supervision, adjudicated
his guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for 45 years. We affirm.
Appellant s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which
counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded
that the appeal is frivolous.
Following the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137
(Tex.Cr.App.1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex.App. - Eastland 2005, no pet n), counsel presents one
issue that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel challenges the trial court s denial of appellant s second motion to
continue the adjudication hearing. However, as counsel notes in his brief, TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12,
5(b) (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 2004 - 2005) 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). This issue will not support an appeal.
Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file
a response to counsel s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders v. California, supra; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Gainous v. State, supra; Eaden v.
State, supra.
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal
is without merit.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7948.html[8/20/2013 7:27:45 PM]

PER CURIAM
July 14, 2005
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7948.html[8/20/2013 7:27:45 PM]

Download 7948.pdf