Stephen Knutson v. State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-00-00490-CR
Stephen KNUTSON,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2000-CR-1154
Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. L pez, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 25, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Stephen Knutson pled no contest to indecency with a child by contact and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine in accordance with the terms of his plea bargain agreement. Knutson filed a general notice of appeal.

Knutson's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Knutson was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Knutson has not done so.

Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure limits the scope of our jurisdiction over appeals from plea-bargained convictions where punishment has been assessed in accordance with the plea agreement. This rule restricts an appeal to issues that the trial court granted permission to appeal, jurisdictional issues, and issues raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, and requires appellant to specify the ground for appeal in the notice. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Because Knutson'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. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); 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.).

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. The record does not raise any issues concerning the trial court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the trial court denied permission to appeal and there are no matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. We therefore dismiss both the appeal and the motion to withdraw for lack of jurisdiction.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish