Anthony Wayne Wilson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-02-196 CR
____________________
ANTHONY WAYNE WILSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 85188
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony Wayne Wilson pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of delivery of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of less than one gram. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.112(a),(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003). The trial court sentenced Wilson to 16 months of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division.

 

Appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes no arguable error is presented in this appeal. See 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). On August 1, 2002, Wilson was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. Because the appeal involves the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

We first address the State's contention that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the appeals because of Wilson's failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. There is no written plea bargain agreement in the clerk's record. A document titled "Unagreed Punishment Recommendations" states "16 month cap." (emphasis added). However, the trial court specifically stated that a "plea bargain cap of sixteen months had been previously rejected" because the defendant failed to appear in court for the scheduled hearing, but that the court would "re-institute the sixteen month cap as a binding maximum." The procedure for plea bargain agreements applies where the prosecution and the defense agree to limit, or "cap," the upper range of punishment. See Delatorre v. State, 957 S.W.2d 145, 148-49 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, pet. ref'd). We find the court followed a plea bargain agreement. Therefore, the general notice of appeal filed by Wilson failed to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). (1)

We have reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Wilson raises no points of error over which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

 

Submitted on November 20, 2002

Opinion Delivered November 27, 2002

Do Not Publish

 

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

1. The notice of appeal must specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or state the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).