Jason E. Lurati v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-02-00712-CR
Jason LURATI,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2002-CR-2349
Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 29, 2003

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Jason E. Lurati pled no contest to possession of between four ounces and five pounds of marijuana. In accordance with a plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced Lurati to twelve months imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - State Jail Division, to run concurrently with a ten year prison sentence imposed in another case, and fined Lurati one thousand dollars. Lurati's motion for new trial was denied after a hearing and, on July 9, 2002, Lurati filed a general notice of appeal.

Lurati'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). Lurati was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. He has not done so.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. When Lurati appealed, former Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure was in effect. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3) (repealed). That rule restricted appeals from plea bargained convictions to issues that the trial court granted permission to appeal, jurisdictional issues, and issues raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, and required appellant to specify the ground for the appeal in the notice of appeal. Id. Lurati's general notice of appeal does not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3) (repealed). We therefore do not have "power to address the merits of" any of the issues on which appeal is allowed under Rule 25.2(b)(3). Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 803 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Moreover, the record reflects no error in jurisdiction, no written pretrial motions were filed, and the trial court did not grant permission to appeal. We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Lurati's counsel and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish