William Thomas Willms v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 66th District Court of Hill County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-97-152-CR

WILLIAM THOMAS WILLMS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court # 30,766

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant William Thomas Willms pled guilty to the felony offense of burglary of a building. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 30.02(a)(3) (Vernon 1994). Pursuant to the State s plea recommendation, the court assessed Willms' punishment at two years confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Willms on community supervision for a period of five years. The court s judgment provides that Willms sentence run concurrently with any sentence in Bosque County, Texas. // Willms filed a pro-se // general notice of appeal.

In order to properly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, an appellant must either comply with the requirements of the rules of appellate procedure for perfecting an appeal or raise jurisdictional complaints. Tate v. State, 921 S.W.2d 496, 497 (Tex. App Waco 1996, no pet.). Because Willms attempted to perfect this appeal in April 1997, he had to comply with Rule 40(b)(1) of the former Rules of Appellate Procedure in order to properly perfect the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1), 49 Tex. B.J. 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986, repealed 1997).

Rule 40(b)(1) provided in pertinent part that if a defendant seeks to appeal from a

judgment [that] was rendered upon his plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to Article 1.15, Code of Criminal Procedure, and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant and his attorney, in order to prosecute an appeal for a nonjurisdictional defect or error that occurred prior to entry of the plea the notice shall state that the trial court granted permission to appeal or shall specify that those matters were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial.

Id. Willms notice of appeal does not recite that the trial court granted him permission to appeal, nor does it identify any nonjurisdictional issues raised by written pretrial motions. Thus, Willms notice of appeal does not comply with the requirements of Rule 40(b)(1). //

Willms argues in a single point of error that the trial court failed to make sufficient investigation into all factors bearing upon a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of counsel by [him] before accepting his written waiver of counsel. This is a nonjurisdictional issue. See Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) ( jurisdiction is the power of the court over the subject matter of the case, conveyed by statute or constitutional provision, coupled with personal jurisdiction over the accused. ).

Willms notice of appeal does not comply with the requirements of Rule 40(b)(1). His brief raises a nonjurisdictional issue. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 8, 1997

Do not publish