TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-96-00069-CR
Charles Lopez, Jr., Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 18,593, HONORABLE CHARLES E. LANCE, JUDGE PRESIDING
PER CURIAM
Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him of burglary of a habitation. Penal Code, 63d Leg., R.S., ch. 399, sec. 1, § 30.02, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 883, 926 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02, 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 sixty years.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he 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, Nos. 1287-94 & 1288-94 (Tex. Crim. App. May 29, 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, Jones and B. A. Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: August 14, 1996
Do Not Publish