Miguel A. Briseno v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 187th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Annotate this CaseNo. 04-02-00824-CR
Miguel A. BRISENO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2001-CR-4975
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice
Sarah B. Duncan, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 25, 2003
APPEAL DISMISSED
Appellant Miguel A. Briseno plead guilty to the charge of sexual assault of a child. Under the terms of the plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced Briseno to six years imprisonment and imposed a $1,000 fine. On appeal, Briseno challenges the voluntariness of his plea. However, he only filed a general notice of appeal that did not comply with Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Under Bayless, Briseno was permitted to amend his defective notice of appeal at any time until he filed his appellate brief. See Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.2d 801, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Briseno never amended his general notice of appeal to state that he was appealing a matter raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or a challenge to the trial court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, he did not receive the trial court's permission to appeal.
Briseno argues that Flowers v. State permits a criminal defendant to challenge the voluntariness of their plea of guilty on appeal. See Flowers v. State, 935 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). However, the Court of Criminal Appeals held otherwise in Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) ("[W]hen we actually consider the issue of whether voluntariness of a guilty plea may be raised on appeal from a plea-bargained, felony conviction, we find that the answer must be that it may not."). Therefore, we conclude that Briseno's failure to comply with Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) deprives this court of jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal.
Catherine Stone, Justice
Do Not Publish
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.