Eliseo Galeote v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00216-CR
Eliseo GALEOTE,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1999-CR-3260
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 30, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Nature of the Case

Eliseo Galeote pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of felony driving while intoxicated. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced Galeote to five years confinement and imposed a $1,000 fine. The trial court, however, suspended Galeote's sentence and placed him on community supervision for five years. From this sentence, Galeote appeals. Specifically, Galeote challenges his conviction, asserting (1) Article 26.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court erred in failing to properly admonish him regarding the possibility of deportation; and (3) as a result of the improper admonishment, as well as ineffective assistance of counsel, Galeote's plea of no contest was involuntarily made.

Discussion

In his first issue, Galeote asserts Article 26.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional in that it fails "to require an admonition that a Defendant's plea of guilty or no contest will rather than may result in deportation." According to Galeote, this alleged defect in the statute deprives him of due process of law by making it impossible for him to freely and voluntarily enter his plea. In the remainder of his issues, Galeote asserts that because he was improperly admonished and because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, his plea was involuntary.

When a judgment is rendered on a defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to a plea bargain in a felony case, and the punishment does not exceed that recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the defendant's notice of appeal must: (1) articulate 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. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A timely notice of appeal that complies with Rule 25.2(b)(3) is necessary to this court's jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). This court's jurisdiction is limited to those issues enumerated in the rule. Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, slip op. at 6-7, 2001 WL 321579, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2001). Under a general notice of appeal, we may review only those issues concerning the trial court's jurisdiction. See Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Rule 25.2(b)(3) applies in this case. Galeote filed a general notice of appeal. Therefore, his first issue is not reviewable under the rule. And, the remainder of his issues on appeal relate to the voluntariness of his appeal. We do not have jurisdiction to review these issues. Cooper, 2001 WL 321579. We, therefore, dismiss Galeote's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Karen Angelini, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH