PER CURIAM
Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice
Tom Rickhoff, Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 21, 2001
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Andrew Mendoza pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced him to twenty years confinement for each count and imposed a $1,000 fine. Mendoza filed a notice of appeal, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3), claiming jurisdictional error.
When a judgment is rendered on the defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to a plea bargain in a felony case, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the defendant's notice of appeal must (a) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (b) indicate that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (c) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A timely notice of appeal complying with Rule 25.2(b)(3) is necessary to confer jurisdiction on this court. See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Moreover, this court's jurisdiction is limited to consideration of the matters set forth in the rule. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
Rule 25.2(b)(3) applies to this appeal. Mendoza's notice of appeal states he desires to appeal a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, he asserts he was unaware that he could object to a visiting judge, the District Attorney conducted a "mini-trial" and made him look like a threat to society, at the trial, witnesses who were not present when he committed the offense testified against him, and "P.S.I. granted [him] probation." His claims do not challenge the trial court's jurisdiction.
We therefore ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellate counsel responded by filing a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Accordingly, we order the Anders brief filed by counsel stricken. The motions to withdraw and the appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH