Dennis Mouton III v. State ( 2004 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-02-480 CR ____________________

DENNIS MOUTON III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 80511

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant was indicted for committing the state jail offense of Endangering a Child. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.041(c), (f) (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to a written plea bargain agreement, appellant was placed on three years unadjudicated community supervision. During the plea proceedings, appellant was admonished, both in writing and verbally, by the trial court in substantial compliance with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2004).  

On September 17, 2002, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant's community supervision alleging four violations of the community supervision order. On September 20, 2002, immediately following the sentencing phase of the jury trial of appellant for the felony offense of Aggravated Assault of a Peace Officer, the first violation of community supervision alleged in the motion to adjudicate, the trial court conducted the hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate. The trial court proceeded to adjudicate appellant guilty for the offense of Endangering a Child, and sentenced him to confinement in the state jail facility for a term of two years.   

Appellant presents us with a single appellate issue complaining that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to allow "mandatory" ten-day preparation time between the filing of the motion to adjudicate, and the hearing to adjudicate, citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.051(e) (Vernon Supp. 2004). The State does not dispute that less than ten days elapsed between the filing of the motion to adjudicate and the day of the hearing. The State argues art. 1.051(e) was not violated because it applies to appointed counsel.  

We do not reach the issue presented as we are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Appellant's notice of appeal failed to invoke our appellate jurisdiction to review the issue relating to his conviction. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). ⁽¹⁾ Although a general notice of appeal invokes our jurisdiction to consider issues relating to the process by which appellant was punished, no error relating to punishment was preserved. Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 883, 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Because appellant failed to meet the requirement of former-Rule 25.2(b)(3), the jurisdiction of this court has not been properly invoked. We therefore dismiss the instant appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 20, 2004

Opinion Delivered March 3, 2004

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess, and Gaultney, JJ.

1.

For appeals commenced before January 1, 2003, in a plea-bargained, felony case, the notice of appeal must specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or state the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2 (b)(3).