Harris, Bobby Lee v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 263rd District Court of Harris County

Dismissed and Opinion filed July 25, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00043-CR

NO. 14-02-00044-CR

NO. 14-02-00045-CR

____________

BOBBY LEE HARRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 889,966, 889,967 & 889,968

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered pleas of guilty to three offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child. In accordance with the terms of plea bargain agreements with the State, on November 14, 2001, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We dismiss.

To invoke an appellate court=s jurisdiction over an appeal, an appellant must give timely and proper notice of appeal. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in each case that did not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Rule 25.2(b)(3) provides that when an appeal is from a judgment rendered on a defendant=s plea of guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the State and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal must: (1) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (2) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (3) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Id. Not only must the specific notice of appeal recite the applicable extra-notice requirements, the record must substantiate the recitations in the notice of appeal. Betz v. State, 36 S.W.3d 227, 228-29 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex. App.CDallas 1999, no pet.). Appellant=s notices of appeal merely quoted the rule; the records including the record from the plea hearing, do not substantiate that permission to appeal was granted or that any jurisdictional defects exist. The records also do not include any written pre-trial motions that could form the substance of the appeals.

The time for filing a proper notice of appeal has expired; thus, appellant may not file an amended notice of appeal to correct jurisdictional defects. State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 413-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Because appellant=s notices of appeal did not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3), we are without jurisdiction to consider any of appellant=s issues, including the voluntariness of the pleas. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.2d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that appellant who files general notice of appeal may not appeal voluntariness of negotiated plea).

Moreover, as part of his plea agreements, appellant signed a written waiver of the right to appeal in each case. The trial court followed the plea bargain agreements in assessing punishment. Despite having waived the right to appeal, appellant filed notices of appeal. Appellant chose to enter into agreements that included waivers of the right to appeal. Appellant was informed of his right to appeal, knew with certainty the punishment he would receive, and that he could withdraw his plea if the trial court did not act in accordance with the plea agreement. As appellant was fully aware of the consequences when he waived his right to appeal, it is Anot unfair to expect him to live with those consequences now.@ Alzarka v. State, 60 S.W.3d 203, 206 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] July 26, 2001, pet. granted) (quotingMabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 104 S. Ct. 2543, 2547-48 (1984)). See also Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Buck v. State, 45 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed July 25, 2002.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Anderson and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).