Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004

Phillip Warren Roberts v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided May 26, 2004 · Gray, Vance, Reyna

141 S.W.3d 685; 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4851; 2004 WL 1177218 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Johnny LaSalle Brewer, Jr. v. State (Tex. App. 2006)
Christopher Yaites v. State (Tex. App. 2005)
Herbert Paul Smith v. State (Tex. App. 2005)
Phillip Roberts v. Randall Roberts and Roberts Publishing Company, Inc. (Tex. App. 2006)
James C. Pettit, D.O. v. Jimmy and Carolyn Dowell, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Jonathan Lance Dowell (Tex. App. 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Phillip Warren Roberts pleaded guilty to two counts of indecency with a child. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed Roberts on unadjudicated community supervision for ten years. The court subsequently adjudicated Roberts’s guilt, sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment on each count, and ordered the sentences to run consecutively.

Roberts contends in his sole issue that the court erred by adjudicating his guilt for violations which the court had considered in a prior hearing which resulted in a modification of the terms and conditions of his unadjudicated community supervision. This issue concerns the trial court’s determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. Article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits Rob*686erts from raising this issue on appeal. Tex.Code CRiM. PROC. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Williams v. State, 592 S.W.2d 931, 932-33 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.]1979); Gray v. State, 134 S.W.3d 471, 472 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, no pet. h.). Thus, we dismiss Roberts’s sole issue.

We affirm the judgment. See Williams, 592 S.W.2d at 933; Gray, 134 S.W.3d at 472-73.

Chief Justice GRAY dissents.

Dissenting Opinion

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

Until the precedential value of Gray and Emich are established, I note my dissent to the affirmance of the trial court’s judgment, which we have not reviewed, when dismissal is the proper disposition of this appeal. See Gray v. State, 134 S.W.3d 471 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, no pet. h.)(Gray, C.J., dissenting); Emich v. State, 138 S.W.3d 398 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, no pet. h.)(Gray, C.J., dissenting). Interestingly, the majority attempts to bolster its position that affirming the judgment is the proper disposition by citing the 1979 Court of Criminal Appeals opinion, Williams v. State. See Williams v. State, 592 S.W.2d 931 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). The distinct difference between Williams and this case is that, in Williams, the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Id. at 933. In this case, we did not.

Thus, I respectfully dissent.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.