Juan Guzman Robledo v. State

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-01-478 CR ____________________

JUAN ROBLEDO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 83135

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION  

Juan Robledo pleaded no contest to the felony offense of driving while intoxicated. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 49.04, 49.09 (Vernon Supp. 2002). Following a plea bargain agreement between Robledo and the State, the trial court sentenced Robledo to twenty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. ⁽¹⁾  

Retained appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes that the appellate record presents no error which would arguably support an appeal. ⁽²⁾ On August 1, 2002, Robledo was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. Because the appeal involves 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 Robledo failed to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). ⁽³⁾

Our review of the clerk's record and the reporter's record reveals no arguable error meriting further briefing. Robledo raises no points of error over which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 20, 2002  

Opinion Delivered November 27, 2002

Do Not Publish

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

1.

The "Agreed Punishment Recommendation" reduced the number of enhancement allegations so that Robledo had repeat offender rather than habitual offender status, and limited the upper range of punishment to 20 years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. These circumstances establish the existence of a plea bargain agreement as to the punishment to be assessed by the trial court. See Delatorre v. State, 957 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, pet. ref'd).

2. Our obligation to review the record for arguable error applies only in cases where counsel has been appointed to represent an indigent defendant. 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). However, there is no prohibition against hybrid representation, nor are we prohibited from conducting our own review of the record for arguable error in a case where retained counsel files a brief that concedes there is no error in the judgment.

3.

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).