Thomas George Bachart v. State ( 2003 )

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Thomas George Bachart

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-02-00354-CR B Appeal from Taylor County

State of Texas

Appellee

This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt and revoking community supervision. Originally, Thomas George Bachart entered a  plea of guilty to the offense of indecency with a child.  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for 10 years and assessed a $2,500 fine.  After a hearing on the State=s amended motion to adjudicate and revoke, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked the community supervision, adjudicated appellant=s guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for eight years.  We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he states that, after a diligent search of the record, he has not found reversible error upon which an appeal could be predicated.  Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief.  A pro se brief has not been filed.  Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); 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); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

An appeal may not be taken from the trial court=s decision to adjudicate guilt.  TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1992).  Likewise, a challenge may not be made to the proceedings on the merits.  Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Cr.App.1999).   However, the proceedings on punishment may be challenged.  Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159 (Tex.Cr.App.1992).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, including the proceedings occurring after the trial court adjudicated guilt.  We agree that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

August 7, 2003

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.