|
|
NUMBER 13-01-350-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
___________________________________________________________________
BRIAN WAYNE WILLEY, JR., Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________
On appeal from the Criminal District Court
of Jefferson County, Texas.
__________________________________________________________________
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez
Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
In accordance with a plea agreement, appellant, Brian Wayne Willey, Jr., pleaded guilty to the offense of forgery. The trial court deferred adjudicating appellant=s guilt, placed him on community supervision for four years and assessed a $500.00 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court found appellant violated some of the conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, found appellant guilty of the offense of forgery, and sentenced him to eighteen months confinement in a state jail facility of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in which he concluded this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), as it presents a professional evaluation of why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel certifies in his brief he served appellant with a copy of the brief and informed appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No such brief has been filed.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, an appellate court must conduct Aa full examination of all proceedings to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@ Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record, and, finding nothing that would arguably support an appeal, agree that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stratford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.
Moreover, appellant filed a general notice of appeal to the judgment adjudicating his guilt. The extra-notice requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3) apply to judgments adjudicating guilt and assessing punishment, entered pursuant to plea agreements, after deferred adjudication has been revoked. Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 713-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). In this case, appellant=s notice of appeal does not specify that the appeal is for jurisdictional defects, from a ruling on a pre-trial motion, or that the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). We conclude we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed
this 3rd day of July, 2002.