Michael Thomas Maples v. State of Texas--Appeal from County Crim Court No 3 of Dallas County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-00-150-CR

MICHAEL THOMAS MAPLES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Criminal Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # MB99-30639-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Thomas Maples pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 49.04(a) (Vernon Supp. 2000). Pursuant to the State s plea recommendation, the court sentenced Maples to 180 days in the county jail and a $750 fine, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed him on community supervision for 24 months. Maples filed a general notice of appeal.

We advised Maples by letter dated May 4, 2000 that his appeal appears subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal does not comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3). See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). We warned that his appeal would be dismissed if this defect were not corrected within ten days after the date of the letter. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

To properly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court over an appeal from a negotiated guilty plea, an appellant must comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3). Elizondo v. State, 979 S.W.2d 823, 824 (Tex. App. Waco 1998, no pet.); Villanueva v. State, 977 S.W.2d 693, 695-96 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). Rule 25.2(b)(3) provides that in cases where a defendant has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the defendant s notice of appeal must:

(a) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect;

(b) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or

(c) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal.

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).

Maples s general notice of appeal does not contain any of these three required recitations. Thus, it does not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3). Accordingly, we dismiss Maples s appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Opinion delivered and filed May 31, 2000

Do not publish