Guillermo Mendoza v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00312-CR
Guillermo MENDOZA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1998-CR-4293
Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 16, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Guillermo Mendoza pled nolo contendere to felony driving while intoxicated pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, and the trial court sentenced him to five years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. The court then suspended the imposition of the sentence of imprisonment and placed Mendoza on community supervision for five years. The sentence is within the terms of the plea bargain. Mendoza timely filed a general notice of appeal.

When a judgment is rendered on the defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to a plea bargain in a felony case, and the punishment assessed did 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); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A timely notice of appeal complying with Rule 25.2(b)(3) is necessary to confer jurisdiction on this court. See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Once the time for perfecting the appeal has passed, appellant may not retroactively confer jurisdiction on this court by filing an amended notice of appeal. Id. at 413-14. Moreover, this court's jurisdiction is limited to consideration of the matters set forth in the rule. See Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, 2001 WL 321579 (Tex. Crim. App. April 4, 2001). When Rule 25.2(b)(3) applies and a general notice of appeal is filed, we may review only issues concerning the trial court's jurisdiction. See Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Rule 25.2(b)(3) applies to this appeal. Because Mendoza did not file a notice of appeal complying with the rule, we ordered appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mendoza's response to our order does not raise any issues concerning the trial court's jurisdiction and none are apparent on the face of the record. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish