STEVE GARCIA v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 138th District Court of Cameron County

NUMBER 13-01-534-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

  STEVE GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 138th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant, Steve Garcia, brings this appeal following the revocation of his community supervision. By one point of error, Garcia contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Garcia was charged with indecency with a child, and pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, pled guilty to the offense. In September 1999, the trial court deferred adjudicating appellant=s guilt and placed him on community supervision for a period of eight years. In February 2001, the State filed a second motion to revoke Garcia=s community supervision. At the revocation hearing, the trial court found Garcia failed to attend crime deterrent classes and pay probation fees as ordered. Garcia=s guilt was adjudicated and he was sentenced to ten years incarceration at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Because the trial court sentenced Garcia in accordance with a plea bargain agreement, Garcia was required to comply with the additional notice requirements of rule 25.2(b)(3). Rule 25.2(b)(3) requires a defendant, appealing from a plea bargained conviction, to file a notice of appeal stating the appeal is for jurisdictional defect, from a ruling on a pre-trial motion, or show that the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(b)(3); White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In this instance, Garcia filed only a general notice of appeal and, thus, failed to allege any of the additional notice requirements of rule 25.2(b)(3).

Furthermore, article 42.12, section 5(b) of the code of criminal procedure provides that in a case involving deferred adjudication, no appeal may be taken from the trial court=s decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2002); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). If Garcia=s notice of appeal does not comport with rule 25.2(b)(3), this Court only has jurisdiction to consider issues relating to the process by which Garcia was sentenced; or whether the original judgment deferring Garcia=s adjudication is void. See Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); see also White, 61 S.W.3d at 428. However, Garcia has not raised any of these issues, nor do any such errors appear in the record. We conclude we are without jurisdiction. White, 61 S.W.3d at 428.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 8th day of August, 2002