Adrian Stefan Owens v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 368th District Court of Williamson County

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-95-00558-CR
Adrian Stefan Owens, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 93-767-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

 

Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him of injury to a child. Act of May 29, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 357, 1, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 1441, amended by Act of May 27, 1991, 72d Leg., R.S., ch. 497, 1, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 1742 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. 22.04, since amended). The district court found that the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt and, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, deferred further proceedings and placed appellant on community supervision. The court subsequently revoked supervision on the State's motion, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten years.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which she concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

Appellant's notice of appeal does not preserve for review the district court's rulings on appellant's pretrial motions and does not state that the court gave appellant permission to appeal. As a result, we have jurisdiction in this cause only to consider jurisdictional issues. Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1). Appellant's brief does not question the jurisdiction of the district court over either the subject matter of this cause or appellant personally. Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). In light of the frivolous appeal brief, we have examined the record and find no basis for challenging the district court's jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

 

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and Jones

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 11, 1996

Do Not Publish