In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-01-031 CR
NO. 09-01-032 CR
NO. 09-01-033 CR
NO. 09-01-034 CR
____________________
ZACHARY DESHAWN LEBLANC, a/k/a ZACHARY ACHAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 80957, 81891, 81892, and 82108
Zachary Deshawn LeBlanc, who is also known as Zachary Achan, pleaded guilty as a repeat offender to robbery in cause No. 80957 (Appeal No. 09-01-031 CR). See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.02 (Vernon 1994); see also Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42 (b) (Vernon Supp. 2001). A plea bargain agreement between LeBlanc and the State placed an upper limit of twenty years on the punishment range and required a sentence concurrent with those for other specified offenses. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
On the same day as the proceedings in Cause No. 80957, LeBlanc pleaded guilty as a repeat offender to robbery in cause No. 82108 (Appeal No. 09-01-034 CR). See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.02 (Vernon 1994); see also Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42 (b) (Vernon Supp. 2001). A plea bargain agreement between LeBlanc and the State capped the punishment range at twenty years of incarceration and provided for a sentence concurrent with those for other specified offenses. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
On the same day as the proceedings described above, LeBlanc pleaded guilty as a repeat offender to attempted robbery in cause No. 81892 (Appeal No. 09-01-033 CR). See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.02 (Vernon 1994); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 15.01 (Vernon 1994); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42 (a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2001). A plea bargain agreement between LeBlanc and the State placed a twenty year "cap" on the punishment range and required that the sentence run concurrently with LeBlanc's other convictions. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
On the same day as the proceedings in Cause No. 80957, LeBlanc pleaded guilty as a prior aggravated felony offender to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in cause No. 81891 (Appeal No. 09-01-032 CR). See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.07 (Vernon 1994); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.35 (c)(2)(A) (Vernon 1994). A plea bargain agreement between LeBlanc and the State required that the sentence run concurrently with LeBlanc's other convictions and resulted in state jail felony punishment. The trial court assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility.
Appellate counsel filed briefs 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 briefs conclude no arguable error which would support an appeal is presented, a conclusion with which we concur. On April 26, 2001, LeBlanc was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief if he so desired. As of today, we have received no response from the appellant.
The records contain written plea bargain agreements which provided for concurrent sentences and upper limits on the assessment of punishment. Because the limitation on the upper range of punishment was part of a plea bargain agreement, the notice of appeal must comply with the rules of appellate procedure which apply to appeals from plea bargained convictions. Delatorre v. State, 957 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, pet. ref'd).
The records contain proper admonishments and judicial confessions. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the clerk's records and the reporter's records and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
The general notices of appeal filed in these causes do not comply with the form required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over the appeals. Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The appellant raised no issues upon which we have jurisdiction, and we find no arguable error upon which we would have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.
APPEALS DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on September 5, 2001
Opinion Delivered September 12, 2001
Do Not Publish
Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.