Richard Perez v. State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00566-CR
Richard PEREZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2000-CR-1245
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 30, 2001

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; DISMISSED FOR LACK,OF JURISDICTION

Richard Perez pled no contest to felony driving while intoxicated pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. In accordance with the agreement, the trial court sentenced him to five years imprisonment, imposed a fine of $1,000, and ordered restitution. Perez filed a general notice of appeal.

Perez's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Perez was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Perez filed a pro se brief, contending his plea was involuntary and he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial court.

Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure limits the scope of our jurisdiction over appeals from plea-bargained convictions where punishment has been assessed in accordance with the plea agreement. To invoke the court's jurisdiction over this appeal, the notice of appeal must state the appeal is from a jurisdictional defect, the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Because Perez'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 Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and Perez's brief. We do not have jurisdiction to review the points raised in Perez' brief. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). After a careful review of the record, we find no jurisdictional error. We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Perez's counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish