Ernest A. Espinoza v. State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-01-00411-CR
Ernest A. ESPINOZA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2000-CR-4169-B
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 24, 2001

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

Ernest A. Espinoza pleaded guilty to one count of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced Espinoza to fifteen years confinement and assessed a $1,000 fine. Espinoza filed a general notice of appeal.

When a judgment is rendered on a defendant's plea of guilty pursuant to a plea bargain in a felony case, and the punishment does not exceed that recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the defendant's notice of appeal must: (1) articulate 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. 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 that complies with Rule 25.2(b)(3) is necessary to this court's jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Under a general notice of appeal, we may review only those 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 Espinoza's appeal. However, his notice of appeal is general and does not comply with the rule. On August 17, 2001, this court requested Espinoza to submit a letter brief identifying those issues or points to be raised on appeal and to explain why those issues or points warranted continuation of his appeal. We received no response. We, therefore, dismiss Espinoza's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH