Pedro Antonio Davila v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 184th District Court of Harris County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Pedro Antonio Davila

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-02-00026-CR B Appeal from Harris County

State of Texas

Appellee

The trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated robbery. On October 26, 2001, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 10 years. Punishment was assessed pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. On October 30, 2001, appellant filed a pro se Ageneral@ notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he conscientiously examines the record and applicable law. Counsel presents nine points detailing why the record does not support reversible error. Counsel=s first point, in which he argues that the Ageneral@ notice of appeal failed to perfect an appeal, is dispositive of the appeal.

Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

In his pro se brief, appellant stated that his trial counsel Awasn=t much@ help, that counsel got him a deal for 10 years, and that he had asked counsel to get something lower and to see if he could get deferred adjudication. However, appellant=s Ageneral@ notice of appeal did not comply with former TEX.R.APP.P. 25.5(2)(b)(3), the applicable law.

Without a proper notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

January 23, 2003

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.