Williams, James Daniel v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 208th District Court of Harris County

Dismissed and Opinion filed July 10, 2003.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-01238-CR

____________

JAMES DANIEL WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 925,452

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

Appellant pled guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance on October 15, 2002. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant on October 15, 2002, 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. 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).[1]

The rule does not mean, however, that an appellate court=s jurisdiction is properly invoked by the filing of a specific notice of appeal complying only in form with the extra-notice requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3). Betz v. State, 36 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex. App.BDallas 1999, no pet.). An appellant must, in good faith, comply in both form and substance with the extra-notice requirements of the rule. Betz, 36 S.W.3d at 228. See also Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)(stating that appellant=s general notice of appeal could not truthfully state that trial court had given permission to appeal). Not only must the specific notice of appeal recite the applicable extra-notice requirements, the record must substantiate the recitations in the notice of appeal and the issues raised in the brief must relate to the specific claims in the notice of appeal. See Betz, 36 S.W.3d at 228-29; Sherman, 12 S.W.3d at 492. Statements required by the rule to be in the notice of appeal must be true to confer jurisdiction; mere allegations are not sufficient. Sherman, 12 S.W.3d at 492.

In his pro se notice of appeal, appellant states that he is appealing nonjurisdictional defects [that] may be raised by written pretrial motion and ruled upon prior to trial. In this case, the record does not contain any written motions ruled on before trial. Furthermore, the record does not reflect the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed July 10, 2003.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Seymore, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

[1] The notice of appeal in this case was filed prior to the amendments to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure effective January 1, 2003.