Galvan, Juan v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 409th District Court of El Paso County

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

)

JUAN GALVAN, ) No. 08-02-00180-CR

)

Appellant, ) Appeal from

)

v. ) 409th District Court

)

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ) of El Paso County, Texas

)

Appellee. ) (TC# 20010D05123)

O P I N I O N

Appellant, pro se, appeals from his convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and violation of a protective order, enhanced. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

Appellant, represented by retained counsel, entered negotiated pleas of guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Count 1), and violation of a protective order, enhanced by a prior conviction for violation of a protective order (Count 2). The trial court assessed punishment in accordance with the plea bargain at imprisonment for a term of twelve years for Count 1 and imprisonment for a term of ten years for Count 2. Appellant, acting pro se, timely filed a general notice of appeal. The trial court, by a written order, denied Appellant permission to appeal.

In response to correspondence by Appellant, this Court notified him that our records reflected that he is represented on appeal by his trial counsel, Angelina Lugo. Ms. Lugo immediately filed a motion to withdraw, alleging that she had never been retained to represent Appellant on appeal. On June 18, 2002, this Court ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether Appellant has retained new counsel or is entitled to appointment of counsel. The trial court conducted a hearing and found that Appellant is not indigent and has not retained new counsel. The court further recommended that the appeal be dismissed in light of the order denying Appellant permission to appeal. On July 26, 2002, we granted Ms. Lugo=s motion to withdraw. Further, we requested that Appellant file a letter brief explaining why his appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a reply on August 8, 2002, stating that his guilty plea was involuntary.

JURISDICTION

Appellant seeks to appeal from a judgment rendered on his guilty plea to two felony counts where the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. Consequently, his notice of appeal must satisfy the extra-notice requirements of Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(b)(3) in order to invoke this Court=s jurisdiction. Appellant, however, has filed only a general notice of appeal. Therefore, Appellant is unable to raise a challenge to any jurisdictional defect. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(b)(3)(A). Likewise, he is not allowed to challenge the trial court=s rulings on any pretrial motions. Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(b)(3)(B). Further, the voluntariness of his guilty plea may not be raised on direct appeal from a felony conviction but must be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding. Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Given that the trial court has denied Appellant permission to appeal, he is precluded from raising other claims which under other circumstances might be appealable. For these reasons, we hereby dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

September 12, 2002

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Panel No. 2

Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)