Joseph Steven Harris v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-01-00535-CR
Joseph Steven HARRIS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1998-CR-5621
Honorable Mark Luitjen, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul. W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 31, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court revoked Joseph Steven Harris's community supervision after he pleaded true to the State's allegations that he violated certain conditions of his probation. The trial court sentenced him to two years imprisonment and a $1000 fine in accordance with the terms of his original plea bargain agreement. Harris filed a general notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment.

To invoke the court's jurisdiction over this appeal, Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that the notice of appeal specify that the appeal is from a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or 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). Because Harris's general notice of appeal did not meet any of the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3), this court only has jurisdiction to consider issues relating to the trial court's jurisdiction. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

Given the jurisdictional limits on Harris's appeal, on September 17, 2001, we ordered appellate counsel to submit a letter identifying the issues to be raised on appeal and explaining how this court had jurisdiction to consider those issues. Appellate counsel did not respond. The record fails to demonstrate that an issue exists relating to the trial court's jurisdiction. Because the appeal does not raise any issues this court has jurisdiction to consider, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH