NUMBER 13-99-501-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________
JOSE D. ROZAS-VALLEGOS
, Appellant,v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
, Appellee.___________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Before Justices Hinojosa, Chavez, and Rodriguez Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
Appellant, Jose D. Rozas-Vallegos, entered an agreed plea of guilty to the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle(1) enhanced by prior felony convictions.(2) The court sentenced appellant to ten years imprisonment. The sentence did not exceed the State's recommendation. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Counsel referred this Court to error in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See id. at 744. Further, counsel presented, for each arguable point of error, a discussion of the correctness of the trial court's rulings, why appellant was not harmed, and why the record could not support arguments presented. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel certified that he served appellant with a copy of the brief. Further, counsel has advised this Court that he has informed appellant in writing of his right to review the record and of his right to file a pro se brief. More than thirty days have passed since appellant was so advised, and he has not filed a pro se brief.
We first address jurisdictional issues raised by counsel. Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that following an agreed plea of guilty, and where the punishment does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, a notice of appeal must specify that (1) the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, (2) the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or (3) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), (c).
Because appellant entered an agreed plea of guilty, and because the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor, rule 25.2(b)(3) limits our jurisdiction over this appeal. While appellant sets out in his notice of appeal that he is claiming numerous jurisdictional matters to be shown on a bill of exception, the record contains no such bill and does not support an appeal of jurisdictional defects. Additionally, by his notice appellant asserts only that there were numerous motions that should have been filed, not that his appeal is from an issue raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. Finally, appellant's pro se notice of appeal states in a notation that the "court does not give permission to appeal. Also, [appellant] waived his right of appeal (see plea papers)."(3) As such, appellant's notice of appeal confers no jurisdiction on this Court to hear this appeal.
While this Court carefully reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and agrees that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit and found nothing in the record which might arguably support this appeal, we must dispose of this appeal on the basis of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we conclude this Court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. We also dismiss for want of jurisdiction counsel's motion to withdraw as attorney of record, as well as all matters prayed for in the appellate brief.(4)
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed
this 27th day of July, 2000.
1. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.07 (Vernon 1994).
2. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42 (Vernon Supp. 2000).
3. The plea form utilized by the trial court and signed by appellant specifically stated that appellant waived any right of appeal he may have had should the court accept the plea bargain agreement between appellant and the prosecutor.
4. Appellant prayed for the appeal to be abated to allow transmission of the record to appellant; for this Court to order the District Clerk to deliver a certified copy of the record to appellant; and for us to allow appellant the opportunity to personally file a brief addressing and/or raising any other points he deemed proper.