Opinion
No. 05-02-00841-CR.
Opinion Filed April 10, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F92-60854-IK. Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, WHITTINGTON, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
Larry Lynn Scott was placed on deferred adjudication for burglary of a vehicle. Ultimately, the trial court granted the State's motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, found appellant guilty, and assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at twenty-five years in prison. In two points of error, appellant seeks reversal because (1) the reporter's record from the original plea proceeding is lost or destroyed and (2) the State failed to prove he violated a condition of his probation. We overrule both points and affirm the trial court's judgment. In his first point of error, appellant argues he is entitled to a new trial because a portion of the reporter's record from the 1993 original deferred adjudication hearing is lost or destroyed through no fault of his. According to appellant, the 1993 record contains his pleas to the underlying offense and to the enhancement paragraphs. Appellant argues without this missing record, "it is confusing to determine if [appellant] was properly admonished and whether the pleas were made knowingly, freely and voluntarily." The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has decided this precise issue against appellant. See Daniels v. State, 30 S.W.3d 407, 408 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (concluding record from original deferred adjudication hearing was not "necessary to the appeal's resolution" because defendant had to appeal any issues related to that hearing at the time deferred adjudication first imposed, not when defendant ultimately adjudicated and probation revoked). We overrule the first point of error. In his second point of error, appellant complains the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated a condition of his probation as alleged in the motion to adjudicate guilt. This is a challenge to the trial court's determination to proceed with adjudication of guilt. Such challenges are not permitted. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003); see also Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). Consequently, we have no jurisdiction to address this complaint. We affirm the trial court's judgment.