-
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-02-00004-CR ______________________________
TITUS EARL WEBSTER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 5th Judicial District Court Cass County, Texas Trial Court No. 2001-F-00170
Before Morriss, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ. Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
O P I N I O N
Titus Earl Webster appeals his conviction for delivery of cocaine in an amount less than one gram. Webster pled guilty, as part of a plea agreement, and the trial court sentenced him to eighteen months' confinement in a state jail facility in accordance with the agreement. The trial court also ordered that other pending drug charges be considered in Webster's sentence and dismissed. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.45(a) (Vernon 1994).
In related proceedings held on the same day, Webster pled guilty to another delivery of cocaine offense, and the trial court revoked Webster's community supervision imposed for a previous cocaine possession conviction. The trial court sentenced Webster to ten years' confinement for the cocaine possession conviction and eighteen months' confinement for the cocaine delivery conviction. The trial court also ordered all sentences to run concurrently. Webster has filed appeals from the judgments in the latter proceedings. We consider those appeals in separate opinions.
Webster's attorney has filed an appellate brief in which he concludes that, after a review of the record and the related law, the appeal is frivolous and without merit. He has evaluated the record and has found no error that arguably supports an appeal. The brief thus meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Webster did not file a response pro se.
In his Anders brief, Webster's counsel on appeal observes this Court is without jurisdiction to consider errors related to Webster's conviction because Webster pled guilty as part of a plea agreement, which was followed by the trial court, and he filed a general notice of appeal. If an appeal is from a judgment rendered on the defendant's plea of guilty under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2002) and the punishment assessed did not exceed that recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the appellant's 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) the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). A notice of appeal that does not conform to Rule 25.2(b)(3) deprives this Court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Woods v. State, 68 S.W.3d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Because Webster did not file a notice of appeal conforming to the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3), we are without jurisdiction to consider errors related to his conviction.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held, however, that Rule 25.2(b)(3) does not apply to appeals of issues unrelated to the conviction. Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). For instance, in Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the failure of appellant's notice of appeal to comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3) did not bar the court of appeals from considering the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase.
We are required, in a case in which an Anders brief is filed, to conduct our own independent review of the record, looking exclusively for errors unrelated to the conviction. Wilson v. State, 40 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, order). We have conducted that review and have found no such error.
The judgment is affirmed.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: July 11, 2002
Date Decided: July 12, 2002
Do Not Publish
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-10-00136-CV
______________________________
IN RE: RICKY L. GILMORE
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ricky L. Gilmore has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks this Court to order the Honorable Pam Fletcher of the 349th Judicial District Court of Houston County, Texas, to provide him with the due process required by law in connection with its order withdrawing money from his prison trust account. His appeal from his criminal conviction was transferred to this Court from the Twelfth Court of Appeals by the Texas Supreme Court as part of its docket equalization activities. This separate, civil mandamus was presented for filing directly to this Court by Gilmore.
This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district. Tex. Govt Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004). Houston County is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Tex. Govt Code Ann. § 22.201(g) (Vernon Supp. 2010). Further, the order is not ancillary to, and does not otherwise affect Gilmores criminal appeal. See generally In re Richardson, 252 S.W.3d 822, 830 (Tex. App.Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); Tex. Capital BankWestwood v. Johnson, 864 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. App.Texarkana 1993, orig. proceeding).
We deny the petition for want of jurisdiction.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: January 3, 2011
Date Decided: January 4, 2011
Document Info
Docket Number： 06-02-00004-CR
Filed Date： 7/12/2002
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/7/2015