Hey everyone,
I have a rather unique issue that has come up on appeal. We have a defendant that was placed on Deferred Adjudication. The State filed a Motion to Proceed and a hearing was held. On appeal, the defendant alleges that his due process rights were violated because the trial court never actually adjuicated and found him guilty of the offense. The reporter's record actually lends some credence to his claim. Although the court did make a finding on the record that the defendant violated his probation, it never makes a finding on the record that he is granting the State's Motion to Proceed and is finding him guilty of the offense.
I know that a defendant has almost no right to appeal a court's decision to adjudicate, but I can't find any law answering this specific question. Does the defendant have a right to appeal the alegation that he was not found guilty at all before the court began the Punishment phase?
Thanks for your help

Steve L.

There may not be a case to answer this question, but it seems clear the court would never have proceeded to a punishment hearing without implicitly determining to proceed with adjudication of guilt. Presumably you have an order signed in which guilt is adjudicated and the supervision is revoked and findings made as to provisions of the original order found to be violated. So, I am wondering what is the foundation for the argument? Maybe somehow based on the ruling in Coffey? He is saying due process requires an oral pronouncement?

Thanks Martin for your reply,
The appellant is making a Procedrual Due Process claim that his rights were violated by proceeding to punishment without an adjudication of guilt. The judgment adjudicating guilt was signed by the judge after the punishment phase, which was held several weeks after the adjudication phase of the hearing. I didn't say this was a great argument, but it was something I haven't heard before and something I could find no case law on, so I was slightly worried about how to form a response. Thanks for the help!

Steve Lilley

Check out Harling v. State, 899 S.W.2d 9, 10-11 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 1995, pet. ref'd)

"In this case, the trial court fully admonished the appellant, accepted his guilty plea, and received the State's evidence. However, the trial court specifically reserved a finding of guilt at the November 15, 1993 hearing because of appellant's application for deferred adjudication. The trial court "necessarily" found appellant guilty at the January 6, 1994 hearing when it sentenced him to confinement in the penitentiary. See Villela, 564 S.W.2d at 751. The judgment, however, recites that the trial court found the appellant guilty on November 15, 1994. We have sufficient evidence from the record before us to reform the judgment to reflect that the appellant was found guilty on January 6, 1994. See Williams v. State, 796 S.W.2d 793, 800 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1990, no pet.); TEX. R. APP. P. 80(b). Appellant's first and second points of error are overruled."