ERNEST RAY REESE v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County

NUMBER 13-01-086-CR & 13-01-087-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

ERNEST RAY REESE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the Criminal District Court

of  Jefferson County, Texas.

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Dorsey

Pursuant to separate plea-bargain agreements appellant, Ernest Ray Reese, pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation (Cause No. 13-01-086-CR) and nolocontendere to robbery, enhanced by one previous felony conviction (Cause No. 13-01-087-CR). The trial court sentenced him to twenty years in prison for the burglary offense and twenty-five years in prison for the robbery offense. Appellant=s counsel has filed an Anders[1] brief for each case. Appellant has filed a pro se brief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and, as a result, his plea was involuntary. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

The State argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of these appeals because appellant failed to comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. When a defendant pleads guilty to a felony and the punishment assessed does not exceed that recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant the notice of appeal must state that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, or that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (Rule 25.2(b) limits appeal in every plea bargain, felony case).

Here the plea-bargain agreement for the robbery offense provided that appellant=s punishment would not exceed a cap of twenty-five years in prison. The plea-bargain agreement for the burglary of a habitation offense provided that appellant=s punishment would not exceed a cap of twenty years in prison. Accordingly the punishments assessed did not exceed the punishments recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by appellant. Thus the notices of appeal must state that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, or that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Appellant's notices of appeal do not comply with this rule and, therefore, fail to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Whitt v. State, 45 S.W.3d 274, 275 (Tex. App. Austin 2001, no pet.). Further the court of criminal appeals has ruled that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are non-jurisdictional. Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (citing Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)).

The appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 6th day of June, 2002.

[1]See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).