Ruvicel Zacarias v. State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-01-211 CR
NO. 09-01-212 CR
____________________
RUVICEL ZACARIAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 82762 and 82764
OPINION

Ruvicel Zacarias pleaded no contest in cause No. 82762 (Appeal No. 09-01-211 CR) to the third degree felony possession of marijuana in an amount of fifty pounds or less but more than five pounds. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.121(a),(b)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2002). Zacarias contemporaneously pleaded no contest in cause No. 82764 (Appeal No. 09-01-212 CR) to the second degree felony possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115(a),(d) (Vernon Supp. 2002). The records reflect that written plea bargain agreements between Zacarias and the State capped the punishment range at seven years in each cause and required concurrent sentences. The trial court assessed punishment in each case at five years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. The trial court did not grant permission to appeal.

Appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief concludes no arguable error which would support an appeal is presented, a conclusion with which we concur. On October 11, 2001, Zacarias was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief if he so desired. Zacarias has not filed a pro se brief.

The records contain written plea bargain agreements which provided for concurrent sentences and upper limits on the assessment of punishment. Because the limitation on the upper range of punishment was part of a plea bargain agreement, the notices of appeal must comply with the rules of appellate procedure which apply to appeals from plea bargained convictions. Delatorre v. State, 957 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, pet. ref'd).

 

The general notices of appeal filed in these causes do not comply with the form required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Therefore, our appellate jurisdiction over these causes has not been invoked. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). We have reviewed the clerk's records and the reporter's records for issues over which appellate jurisdiction might exist, and have found no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

APPEALS DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on February 1, 2002

Opinion Delivered February 6, 2002

Do Not Publish

 

Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.