Pedro Daniel Bautista v. State of Texas--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-01-00401-CR
Pedro Daniel BAUTISTA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2000-CR-3256-B
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 24, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Pedro Daniel Bautista pled nolo contendere to burglary of a habitation with intent to commit a felony. The trial court found Bautista guilty and imposed a ten-year probated sentence and a $1,000 fine in accordance with the terms of his plea bargain agreement. Bautista filed a general notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment.

To invoke the court's jurisdiction over this appeal, Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that the notice of appeal state the appeal is from a jurisdictional defect, the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or 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); see State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Because Bautista'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.).

Given the jurisdictional limits on Bautista's appeal, we ordered appellate counsel to submit a letter identifying the issues to be raised on appeal and explaining how this court had jurisdiction to consider those issues. Appellate counsel did not respond. The record fails to demonstrate that an issue exists relating to the trial court's jurisdiction. Because the appeal does not raise any issues this court has jurisdiction to consider, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish