Santiago Aguirre Valle v. State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00454-CR
Santiago Aguirre VALLE,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1996CR2723
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 30, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Santiago Aguirre Valle ("Valle") pled guilty to a felony and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision in accordance with the terms of his plea bargain agreement. Valle seeks to appeal the trial court's judgment adjudicating his guilt and sentencing him to fifteen years confinement.

To invoke the court's jurisdiction over this appeal, rule 25.2(b)(3) requires that the notice of appeal specify that the appeal is from a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Because Valle's general notice of appeal did not meet any of the requirements of rule 25.2(b)(3), this court only has jurisdiction to consider issues relating to the trial court's jurisdiction or the trial court's failure to conduct a punishment hearing after adjudicating guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, 2001 WL 321579 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Valle asserts three points of error in his brief: (1) the trial court erred in failing to properly admonish him prior to accepting his plea; (2) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately protect Valle's rights; and (3) the trial court failed to properly admonish Valle at the revocation hearing. We do not have jurisdiction to consider any of these issues. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, 2001 WL 321579 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d at 661-62. Because the appeal does not raise any issues that this court has jurisdiction to consider, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Catherine Stone, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH