Elroy Glen Huggins v. State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-00-507 CR ____________________

ELROY GLEN HUGGINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 67614

---

OPINION  

Elroy Glen Huggins pleaded no contest to the second degree felony offense of robbery. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.02 (Vernon 1994). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, fined Huggins $500, and placed him on community supervision for five years. The record reflects the trial court followed the terms of a plea bargain agreement between Huggins and the State. Subsequently, the court found Huggins violated the terms of community supervision by committing the criminal offense of possession of marijuana, by possessing a drug, and by violating curfew. The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Huggins to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for eight years.   

After appeal was perfected, 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 that would support the appeal is presented, a conclusion with which we concur. On August 23, 2001, Huggins was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief if he so desired. We received no response from the appellant.

The trial court did not grant permission to appeal. The general notice of appeal filed by Huggins does not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3), as it must in order for Huggins to pursue his appeal from a plea-bargained deferred adjudication of guilt. Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). ⁽¹⁾ Absent a proper notice of appeal, our jurisdiction is not invoked even to address matters which could have been raised had the notice been sufficient. See White v. State, No. 123-01, 2001 WL 1539153 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2001)(not yet reported); Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46-47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). No error relating to the process by which he was punished was preserved at trial or raised on appeal. Compare Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

We have reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Huggins 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 December 31, 2001

Opinion Delivered January 9, 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).