I'm not sure you have a remedy if your office agreed to the original Df Adj. Call or email our research attorney, Stephanie Huser, and she might be able to dig into that for you while we see if anyone else has any bright ideas on this forum.
Posts: 2419 | Location: TDCAA | Registered: March 08, 2002
The court had no authority to defer further proceedings due to the "Except as provided by Article 42A.102(b)" language in Art. 42A.101. Art. 42A.102(b)(1)(a) read: "the judge may grant deferred adjudication community supervision unless: (1) the defendant is charged with an offense: (A) under Sections 49.04-49.08, Penal Code."
The void order in your case has no legal effect and should be ignored (or declared void). The case remains ripe for a proper disposition. The defendant cannot claim any harm, res judicata, estoppel, etc.
Perhaps in light of the holding in Ex parte Williams, 65 S.W.3d 656, a little more needs to be said about estoppel. While no illegal sentencing is involved, it is also difficult to say that the State received any benefit from the bargain. Anyway, Judge Womack's dissent in Williams makes more sense. An order is void when it is entered contrary to the constitution and precluded by the very law relied upon.
Finally, "Parties who agree to a void order have agreed to nothing. See In re Garza, 126 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding)." In re X.A., No. 01-19-00227-CV (Tex. App. 2020)