DocketNumber： 04-01-00710-CR
Filed Date： 1/16/2002
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/7/2015
04-01-00710-CR & 04-01-00711-CR
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Paul W. Green, Justice
Sarah B. Duncan, Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 16, 2002
APPEALS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
On December 13, 2001, we ordered appellant, Debra Connor Fry, to show cause, no later than December 26, 2001, why these appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Counsel for appellant responded that the only issue for appeal in each of these four cases is the voluntariness of the plea. We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction for the following reasons.
Fry pled nolo contendere to charges of robbery (habitual) and misdemeanor theft with two prior theft convictions (a State jail felony). Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, the trial court sentenced Fry to twenty-five years and two years imprisonment, respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently. The sentences are within the terms of the plea bargain. Fry filed notices of appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and the involuntariness of her pleas.
When a judgment is rendered on the defendant's plea of nolo contendere pursuant to a plea bargain in a felony case, and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the defendant's notice of appeal must (a) specify the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (b) specify the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (c) state 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). This Court's jurisdiction is limited to consideration of the matters set forth in Rule 25.2(b)(3). White v. State, No. 123-01, 2001 WL 1539153 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2001); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 78 (Tex. Crim App. 2001). Fry's notices of appeal set forth none of the matters required for jurisdiction under Rule 25.2(b)(3).
In addition, Fry pled true to the State's motions to revoke her deferred adjudication community supervision on charges of forgery and credit card abuse. The trial court proceeded to adjudicate the offenses and Fry was sentenced to twenty-five years and two years confinement, respectively, with the sentences to run concurrent with the sentences for robbery and theft. Fry filed notices of appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and the involuntariness of her pleas on the motions to revoke.
Article 42.12, section 5(b) provides that in a case involving deferred adjudication, no appeal may be taken from the trial court's decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); see Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Further, if the appellant's notice of appeal does not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3), this Court only has jurisdiction to consider issues relating to: (1) the process by which the appellant was sentenced; or (2) whether the original judgment deferring appellant's adjudication is void. See White v. State, No. 123-01, 2001 WL 1539153 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2001); Nix v. State, No. 793-00, 2001 WL 717453, at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. June 27, 2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d at 78. Appellant has not raised and we have found no evidence of irregularities in the adjudication sentencings or the original judgments deferring adjudication.
Appellant's notices of appeal fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3); therefore, they confer no jurisdiction on this Court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish