Gotch, Arnold Eugene v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 174th District Court of Harris County

Dismissed and Opinion filed October 3, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00485-CR

____________

ARNOLD EUGENE GOTCH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 879,829

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant pled guilty on April 3, 2002, to the offense of possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen years= confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Because we have no jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss.

To invoke an appellate court=s jurisdiction over an appeal, an appellant must give timely and proper notice of appeal. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Appellant filed a timely general notice of appeal that did not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Rule 25.2(b)(3) provides that when an appeal is from a judgment rendered on a defendant=s plea of guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the State and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal must: (1) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (2) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (3) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Id. The time for filing a proper notice of appeal has expired; thus appellant may not file an amended notice of appeal to correct jurisdictional defects. State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 413-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Because appellant=s notice of appeal did not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3), we are without jurisdiction to consider any of appellant=s issues, including the voluntariness of the plea. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.2d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that appellant who files general notice of appeal may not appeal voluntariness of negotiated plea).

Appellant filed a response to this Court=s letter of intent to dismiss, stating that the record of the plea should affirmatively attest to the trial court=s recognition that appellant did not waive his right to appeal the adverse ruling on the motion to suppress and that the trial court expressly gave permission to appeal this adverse ruling.

We have reviewed the record and it contains no reference to appellant=s desire to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates the trial court gave appellant permission to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. Although the trial judge made a handwritten notation on the judgment reciting the date of filing of the notice of appeal, this is insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3). Johnson v. State, Nos. 0956-01 & 0957-01, 2002 WL 31018589 at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 11, 2002).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed October 3, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).