Opinion
No. 05-02-01802-CR No. 05-02-01803-CR
Opinion Filed July 8, 2003 Do Not Publish
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F02-25562-IJ and F02-25583-IJ. DISMISS
Before Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Whittington and Richter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Shawn Larson appeals his convictions for evading arrest in a vehicle (cause number 05-02-01802-CR) and theft of property with a value less than $1,500, having two prior theft convictions (cause number 05-02-01803-CR). Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to the charges and pleaded true to the two enhancement paragraphs alleged in each indictment. The trial court found appellant guilty in both cases and found all of the enhancement paragraphs true. Following the plea bargain agreement, the court assessed punishment in each case at six years' imprisonment and a $2,500 fine. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the records showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant he has a right to file a pro se response. Appellant, however, did not file a pro se response. Because appellant was convicted pursuant to a plea bargain, his notice of appeal in each case had to state the appeal was for a jurisdictional defect, a matter raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court gave permission to appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(b)(3) (former rule). Appellant's notices of appeal did not meet these requirements. Thus, he only filed general notices of appeal. See Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). General notices of appeal do not invoke this Court's jurisdiction to consider these appeals. We have reviewed the records and counsel's brief. We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals. Because there is nothing presented over which we have jurisdiction, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.
Rule 25.2(b)(3) was amended to delete the provisions of subsection (b)(3), effective January 1, 2003. Because appellant filed his notices of appeal before January 1, 2003, we apply former rule 25.2(b)(3), which was in effect at the time appellant filed his notices of appeal.