Opinion
No. 05-02-01205-CR.
Opinion Filed April 24, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.
Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F00-70612-TS. Dismissed.
Before Justices JAMES, FRANCIS, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Fitzgerald Lee appeals his conviction for aggravated assault. Before a magistrate, appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to the charge and pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph. The trial court adopted the magistrate's findings, found the enhancement paragraph true and, following the plea bargain agreement, deferred adjudicating appellant's guilt and placed him on community supervision for ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment and a $500 fine. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is 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 record 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 received deferred adjudication pursuant to a plea bargain, his notice of appeal upon adjudication of guilt 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); Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Appellant's notice of appeal did not meet any of these requirements. Thus, he only filed a general notice of appeal. See Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). A general notice of appeal does not invoke this Court's jurisdiction to consider this appeal. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Because there is nothing presented over which we have jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Rule 25.2(b) was amended to delete the provisions of subsection (b)(3), effective January 1, 2003. Because appellant filed his notice of appeal before January 1, 2003, we apply former rule 25.2(b)(3), which was in effect at the time appellant filed his notice of appeal.