Daniel Adam Billingsley v. State ( 2002 )

Nos. 04-01-00692-CR & 04-01-00693-CR Daniel Adam BILLINGSLEY, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the Criminal District Court, Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 80989 & 80991 Honorable Charles D. Carver, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 30, 2002

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Daniel Adam Billingsley pleaded guilty to charges of burglary of a habitation and burglary of a building. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication of each offense and placed Billingsley on probation for five years for each offense. The State filed motions to revoke Billingsley's probation. The trial court revoked Billingsley's probation and adjudicated him guilty of the charged offenses. Billingsley filed a general notice of appeal.

When a judgment is rendered on the defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to a plea bargain in a felony case, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the defendant's notice of appeal must (a) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (b) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (c) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A timely notice of appeal complying with Rule 25.2(b)(3) is necessary to confer jurisdiction on this court. See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Moreover, this court's jurisdiction is limited to consideration of the matters set forth in the rule. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Under a general notice of appeal, we may review only issues concerning the trial court's jurisdiction. See Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Rule 25.2(b)(3) applies to this appeal. Billingsley's notice of appeal, however, is general and does not comply with the rule. This court, therefore, requested Billingsley to submit a letter identifying those issues or points to be raised on appeal and explain why those issues or points warranted the continuation of his appeal. We received no response. Accordingly, Billingsley's appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH