Gipson, Gordon Edward v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 179th District Court of Harris County

Dismissed and Opinion filed October 17, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-01-01245-CR

____________

GORDON EDWARD GIPSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 876,543

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

On October 10, 2001, appellant pled guilty to burglary of a building with intent to commit theft. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to two 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).

On September 26, 2002, this Court notified appellant that we would consider dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless a response was filed showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. On October 7, 2002, appellant filed a response to this Court=s notice. In the response, appellant argues we have jurisdiction despite the general notice of appeal. Specifically, appellant contends that because the trial court imposed a sentence not authorized by law, any plea bargain was Aillegal, unenforceable, and void.@ Thus, appellant reasons that any limitation on the right of appeal is similarly invalid. We disagree.

While we agree that a defect that renders a sentence void may be raised at any time, see Ex parte Beck, 922 S.W.2d 181, 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), this presupposes that the reviewing court is endowed with the jurisdiction to do so. Rule 25.2(b)(3) requires an appellant to file a specific notice of appeal when the appeal is from a judgment rendered on a plea of guilty and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). This specific filing is required to invoke the appellate court=s jurisdiction. Woods v. State, 68 S.W.3d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Betz v. State, 36 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Thus, the failure of an appellant to follow the requirements of rule 25.2(b)(3) deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Woods, 68 S.W.3d at 669; see White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that failure to follow rule 25.2(b)(3) was jurisdictional).

In this case, by failing to file a notice of appeal in compliance with rule 25.2(b)(3), appellant has failed to invoke our jurisdiction and we are unable to review any issue he might raise on appeal, including the claim that the sentence imposed by the trial court is illegal and void. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed October 17, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Frost.

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