time of Hamilton and McMurrey’s trial in June 1993, Stout was not paying the restitution as ordered. The district court refused to allow the defendants to introduce the court records of the deferred adjudication to impeach Stout, on the basis that when adjudication of guilt is deferred, there is no “conviction” to be admitted. However, the court did allow many of the underlying facts relating to Stout’s 1992 theft-by-check prosecution, deferred adjudication and ordered restitution payments to come into evidence: (1) When Stout was asked on cross-examination whether he had been convicted of a felony in the last 10 years, he replied, “I’m on deferred adjudication.” (2) During direct examination, Stout testified that in 1992, “I had a hot check out that I was making re 018 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). ■ Even though Stout’s deferred adjudication
holding a guilty plea pursuant to a deferred judgment is a conviction for purposes of the feloninpossessionofafirearm statute iowa code section 72426 holding that a conviction vacated under ohio revised code  2943031 for the trial courts failure to advise the alien defendant of the possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea is no longer a valid conviction for immigration purposes holding that to establish a conviction for immigration purposes a court must accept a guilty plea or jury verdict make an adjudication and impose a sentence holding that petitioners prior guilty plea and deferred adjudication for forgery did not amount to a conviction within the meaning of the immigration reform and control act 8 usc  1255a holding that a guilty plea for which the defendant received a deferred adjudication counted as a conviction under federal law for purposes of ussg  4b11