RAUL LOPEZ HERNANDEZ v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 138th District Court of Cameron County

NUMBER 13-01-429-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

RAUL LOPEZ HERNANDEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 138th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

O P I N I O N

Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Dorsey

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement appellant, Raul Lopez Hernandez, pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. The trial court followed the plea bargain and sentenced him to eighteen months in a state jail facility. Appellant=s counsel has filed an Anders[1] brief, stating that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

Because this case arises from a plea-bargain agreement the first question that confronts us is whether we have jurisdiction to review the claims before us. Yarbrough v. State, 57 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Tex. App.BTexarkana 2001, pet. ref=d) (appellate court has the obligation to determine its own jurisdiction). When a defendant pleads guilty to a felony, and the punishment assessed does not exceed that recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal must state that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, or that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (Rule 25.2(b) limits appeal in every plea bargain, felony case).

Here the plea-bargain agreement provided that in exchange for appellant=s guilty plea the State would recommend eighteen months in a state jail facility and that this sentence would run concurrent with Cause No. 97-CR-1355-B.[2] The trial court followed the plea bargain; thus, the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by appellant. Accordingly the notice of appeal must state that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, or that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Appellant's notice of appeal did not comply with this rule and, therefore, fails to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Whitt v. State, 45 S.W.3d 274, 275 (Tex. App.B Austin 2001, no pet.).

The appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 20th day of June, 2002.

[1]See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

[2]Cause No. 97-CR-1355-B was a motion to revoke community supervision in which appellant was sentenced to eighteen months in a state jail facility.