eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2001-09

Jadrien Joseph Barry v. State of Texas ( 2001 )


Menu:

  •   

    In The



    Court of Appeals



    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



    ____________________



    NO. 09-00-493 CR

    NO. 09-00-494 CR

    ____________________



    JADRIEN JOSEPH BARRY, Appellant



    V.



    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



    On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

    Jefferson County, Texas

    Trial Cause Nos. 80298 and 79971



    OPINION  

    Jadrien Joseph Barry pleaded no contest in cause No. 79971 (Appeal No. 09-00-494 CR) to aggravated assault on a public servant. Barry contemporaneously pleaded no contest in cause No. 80298 (Appeal No. 09-00-493 CR) to the third degree felony possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a),(c) (Vernon Supp. 2001). The records reflect that written plea bargain agreements between Barry and the State resulted in the abandonment of a repeat offender allegation, capped the punishment range at twenty years in cause No. 79971 and ten years in cause No. 80298, and required concurrent sentences. For the assaultive offense, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. For the drug offense, the trial court imposed a concurrent eight year sentence of incarceration.   

    Appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief concludes no arguable error which would support an appeal is presented, a conclusion with which we concur. On May 17, 2001, Barry was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief if he so desired. As of today, we have received no response from the appellant.

    The records contain written plea bargain agreements which provided for concurrent sentences and upper limits on the assessment of punishment. Because the limitation on the upper range of punishment was part of a plea bargain agreement, the notices of appeal must comply with the rules of appellate procedure which apply to appeals from plea bargained convictions. Delatorre v. State, 957 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, pet. ref'd).

    The records contain proper admonishments and judicial confessions. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the clerk's records and the reporter's records and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

    The general notices of appeal filed in these causes do not comply with the form required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over the appeals. Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The appellant raised no issues upon which we have jurisdiction, and we find no arguable error upon which we would have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

    APPEALS DISMISSED.

    PER CURIAM



    Submitted on September 5, 2001

    Opinion Delivered September 12, 2001

    Do Not Publish



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