|
|
NUMBER 13-99-372-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI-EDINBURG
LAWANDA LASHAE WOODS Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee.
On appeal from the 24th District Court
of Jackson County, Texas
OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez
Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
Appellant, Lawanda Lashae Wood, was arrested for aggravated robbery. She was certified to stand trial as an adult and the matter was transferred to criminal court. Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and was sentenced, pursuant to the plea bargain, to deferred adjudication probation for a period of ten years. Shortly thereafter, the criminal court found that appellant had violated the terms of her probation and sentenced her to fifty years of confinement.
On appeal to this Court, appellant requested a new trial because the record from her certification hearing was inaudible and, therefore, unavailable. Following rule 34.6(f), we held that, Awithout any fault of the appellant, a substantial portion of the electronic recording from the certification hearing in this case is inaudible, and that the inaudible portion is necessary to resolution of the appeal.@ Woods v. State, No. 13-99-372-CR, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 3587, *2 (Corpus Christi May 25, 2000) (not designated for publication); see Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f) (allowing a new trial where a Asignificant portion@ of the recording has been lost or destroyed or is inaudible).
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review of this decision on a substantive issue, but ultimately determined that appellant failed to comply with rule 25.2(b)(3) of the appellate rules, and thus concluded that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the merits of appellant=s adult certification issue. Woods v. State, 68 S.W.3d 667, 668-70 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3) (concerning extra-notice requirements for certain notices of appeal). Thus, the court of criminal appeals reversed this Court=s judgment and remanded this case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. See Woods, 68 S.W.3d at 670.
To invoke an appellate court=s jurisdiction over an appeal, an appellant must give timely and proper notice of appeal. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Rule 25.2(b)(3) provides that when an appeal is from a judgment rendered on a defendant=s plea of guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the State and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal must: (1) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (2) specify that 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. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). In the instant case, appellant filed only a general notice of appeal, rather than the specific notice mandated by appellate rule 25.2(b)(3). See id. According to the analysis of the court of criminal appeals:
In order to appeal the adult certification order, the appellant had to raise the issue >in conjunction with the appeal of a conviction for which the defendant was transferred.= To appeal her conviction for aggravated robbery, the appellant was required to comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3). Because the appellant=s general notice of appeal does not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3), she cannot appeal her conviction for aggravated robbery. It follows, therefore, that the appellant also cannot appeal her adult certification order in conjunction with that conviction.
Woods, 68 S.W.3d at 670; see Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Therefore, because appellant=s general notice of appeal fails to comply with rule 25.2(b)(3), we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Opinion delivered and filed
this 16th day of January, 2003.