Pamela Lee Hebert v. State of Texas

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-00-437 CR

____________________



PAMELA LEE HEBERT, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 79015




OPINION

Pamela Lee Hebert pleaded guilty to the third degree felony offense of attempted arson. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 15.01 (Vernon 1994); § 28.02 (Supp. 2001). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, fined Hebert $500, and placed Hebert on community supervision for ten years. The record reflects the trial court followed the terms of a plea bargain agreement between Hebert and the State. Subsequently, the court found Hebert violated the terms of community supervision by committing the criminal offense of insurance fraud while on community supervision. The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Hebert to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for six years.

After appeal was perfected, appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief concludes no arguable error which would support the appeal is presented, a conclusion with which we concur. On July 19, 2001, Hebert was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief if she so desired. We received no response from the appellant.

The trial court did not grant permission to appeal. The general notice of appeal filed by Hebert does not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3), as it must in order for Hebert to pursue her appeal from a plea-bargained deferred adjudication of guilt. Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). (1) Absent a proper notice of appeal, we are deprived of jurisdiction to review even matters which could have been raised had the notice been sufficient. Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46-47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). No error relating to the process by which she was punished was preserved at trial or raised on appeal. Compare Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

We have reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Hebert raises no points of error over which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM



Submitted on October 22, 2001

Opinion Delivered October 31, 2001

Do Not Publish



Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

1. The notice of appeal must specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or state the trial court granted permission to appeal.

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).