Sandra Socorro Ramos v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-02-00934-CR

Sandra Socorro RAMOS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 01-CR-7175

Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding (1)

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 10, 2003

AFFIRMED

Defendant, Sandra Ramos, pled guilty to the state jail felony offense of theft of property valued between $1,500 and $20,000. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant received a sentence of one year confinement, probated for one year, a fine of $1,000, and was ordered to make restitution.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant complains the trial court erred by convicting her of felony theft instead of misdemeanor theft. The State counters that this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the defendant filed a general notice of appeal.

The State charged defendant by indictment with two counts: (1) fiduciary misapplication (a misdemeanor) and (2) theft of property valued between $1,500 and $20,000 (a state jail felony). Defendant pled guilty to count two, the state jail felony, and pursuant to a plea agreement, received a Class A misdemeanor punishment. Based on defendant's plea, the trial court convicted defendant of felony theft but sentenced her to one year confinement, suspended for a term of one year of community supervision, a fine of $1,000, and ordered defendant to make restitution.

Defendant filed a general notice of appeal on December 18, 2002 that failed to meet any of the requirements of former Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3). (2) Defendant filed her appellate brief on July 3, 2003; however, she did not correct the defect in her notice of appeal before filing her brief. See Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805-06 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see also Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(f). Although the defect in defendant's notice of appeal is not jurisdictional, it prevents us

from having "the power to address the merits of" her claim. See Bayless, 91 S.W.3d 803 n.2. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1. Retired Judge Robert Barton presided over the plea hearing but did not sign the judgment. Judge Mary Roman presided over the sentencing hearing and signed the judgment.

2. Former Rule 25.2(b)(3) was in effect when defendant filed her notice of appeal.