
NO. 07-06-0009-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MAY 4, 2006
______________________________

WILLIAM RIVAS, 

									Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

									Appellee
_________________________________

FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY;

NO. CR-04I-129; HON. ROLAND SAUL, PRESIDING
_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ.
	Appellant, William Rivas, appeals from the trial court's adjudication of his guilt for
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon by contending that his trial counsel was
ineffective.  Counsel was purportedly ineffective because he did not obtain two expert
witnesses.  The experts could have been used, he continues, at the hearing upon the
State's motion to adjudicate guilt to show that he did not commit the crime resulting in the
decision to adjudicate.  For the reason stated below, we dismiss the appeal.
	No appeal may be taken from the trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt.  Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 §5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005); Hogans v. State, 176 S.W.3d 829,
832 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (involving a claim of ineffective assistance).  Given this rule, 
a defendant may not assert, on direct appeal, that his attorney denied him the effective
assistance of counsel during the proceeding to adjudicate.  Hogans v. State, 176 S.W.3d
at 833.  Here, appellant asserts that his attorney should have acquired two experts to prove
that he did not commit the crime upon which the trial court founded its decision to
adjudicate appellant's guilt.  As posited, trial counsel's supposed ineffectiveness is offered
as a way to attack the decision to adjudicate.  And, because it is, we have no jurisdiction
to review the matter.  
	Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

							Brian Quinn
						          Chief Justice

Do not publish.





 
