Kendall Ross Mayfield v. State of Texas ( 2002 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-01-179 CR NO. 09-01-180 CR ____________________

KENDALL ROSS MAYFIELD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 77506 and 77961

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

Kendall Ross Mayfield pleaded guilty in Cause No. 77506 (Appeal No. 09-01-179 CR) to burglary of a habitation. He contemporaneously pleaded guilty in Cause No. 77961 (Appeal No. 09-01-180 CR) to possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount less than one gram. Following written plea bargain agreements between Mayfield and the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Mayfield on community supervision. Mayfield subsequently pleaded "true" to having violated the terms of the community supervision orders. The trial court assessed punishment in Cause No. 77506 at five years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and assessed a concurrent sentence in Cause No. 77961 of two years of confinement in a state jail facility.  

Appellate counsel filed briefs that conclude no arguable error is presented in these appeals. See 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). On January 10, 2002, we granted Mayfield an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. Because the appeals involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.  

The general notice of appeal filed by Mayfield failed to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-715 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), disavowed in part on other grounds by, Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 884-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). ⁽¹⁾ No error relating to the process by which he was punished was preserved at trial or raised on appeal. Vidaurri, 49 S.W.3d at 883.   

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. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Mayfield raises no points of error over which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.  

APPEALS DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 26, 2002   

Opinion Delivered May 1, 2002

Do Not Publish

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

1. 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).