IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
AUGUST 18, 2003
______________________________
TIMOTHY LEE PHILLIPS, JR., APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 39,608-B; HONORABLE JOHN BOARD, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J. (1)
MEMORANDUM OPINIONPursuant to a plea of guilty, appellant Timothy Lee Phillips, Jr. was granted deferred adjudication in 1999 for aggravated assault with an affirmative finding on use of a deadly weapon and placed on community supervision for six years. Upon the State's motion to proceed for numerous violations of the conditions of community supervision, the trial court adjudicated him guilty of the original offense and assessed punishment at ten years confinement. In presenting this appeal counsel has filed an Anders (2) brief in support of a motion to withdraw. Based upon the rationale expressed herein, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the motion to withdraw is rendered moot.
In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that she has diligently reviewed the record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error or grounds upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Thus, she concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court's judgment. Counsel has also shown that she sent a copy of the brief to appellant, and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that she notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief if he desired to do so. Appellant did not file a pro se brief and the State did not favor us with a brief.
Appellant was granted deferred adjudication on February 8, 1999, and on August 29, 2002, upon the State's motion to proceed, the trial court adjudicated him guilty of the original offense. Relying on article 44.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Following counsel's appointment to represent appellant on appeal, she filed an Anders brief advancing one arguable ground, to-wit: whether the trial court abused its discretion in accepting appellant's pleas of guilty and true as they were involuntarily given.
When an appeal is made challenging an issue relating to a conviction rendered from a defendant's initial guilty plea and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the State, the notice of appeal limitations of former Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are triggered. Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880 (Tex.Cr.App. 2001). Moreover, voluntariness of a plea is no longer appealable from plea-bargained felony convictions. Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex.Cr.App. 2001). Thus, because appellant's notice of appeal did not comply with the requirements of former Rule 25.2(b)(3), we are without jurisdiction to entertain any arguable complaints that could have been raised.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction and counsel's motion to withdraw is rendered moot.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
2. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
lse" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
NO. 07-11-00261-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
AUGUST 2, 2011
TERRY R. STREUER, APPELLANT
v.
PSZ FINANCIAL, LLC, APPELLEE
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 OF COMAL COUNTY;
NO. 2011CVB0205; HONORABLE CHARLES A. STEPHENS II, JUDGE
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ORDER
Appellant, Terry R. Streuer, appeals a judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action which ordered that PSZ Financial, LLC, is entitled to possession of a property in New Braunfels, Texas. On May 24, 2011, Streuer timely filed his notice of appeal in the trial court. On June 3, Streuer filed an affidavit of indigence with the 3rd District Court of Appeals. On or about July 1, the appeal was transferred to this Court. On July 12, this Court sent the trial court clerk and reporter notice that Streuer had filed his affidavit of indigence, and directed them to file any contest to Streuers affidavit by July 22.
On July 22, this Court received a contest of Streuers affidavit filed by the official court reporter. However, this contest indicates that Streuer had already paid for the reporters record. Also, the reporters record was received and filed by the Clerk of this Court on July 22. Thus, it does not appear that the reporter is affected by Streuers affidavit. As such, we deny the reporters contest as moot.
On July 28, this Court received a contest of Streuers affidavit filed by the County Clerk. While this contest identifies a potential issue regarding the case to which the affidavit was intended to apply,[1] this Courts correspondence of July 12, clearly indicated that the affidavit was construed by this Court to apply to the present appeal. Regardless of any merit to the County Clerks contentions contained in the contest, it was untimely filed, and, as such, we are required to deem the allegations in Streuers affidavit true and order that Streuer be allowed to proceed without advance payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(e).
As such, this Court orders the County Clerk of Comal County to prepare the clerks record in this appeal without advance payment of costs. The clerks record was due on July 18, 2011. However, the Court will sua sponte grant a 30 day extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 2. The clerks record in this appeal is due on or before August 17, 2011.
Per Curiam
[1] It appears that Streuer has a case pending in the 207th District Court in addition to the present appeal from judgment in County Court at Law, No. 2, of Comal County.