Opinion
No. 11-03-00298-CR
October 23, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Appeal from Nolan County.
Panel consists of: ARNOT, C.J., and WRIGHT, J., and McCALL, J.
OPINION
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. In Trial Court Cause No. 9518, Charail Dominique McDaniel originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of assault on a peace officer. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court convicted appellant of the offense, assessed his punishment at confinement for 7 years and a $1,500 fine, suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence, and placed him on community supervision for 7 years. The sentence was imposed on November 26, 2001. At the May 6, 2002, hearing on the State's motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to six allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and imposed a sentence of confinement for 6 years and a $1,500 fine. This sentence was imposed on May 6, 2002. Appellant is attempting to appeal from the May 6, 2002, judgment. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The clerk's record was received in this court on October 2, 2003. The record reflects that appellant was represented by counsel during the trial court proceedings; that appellant's pro se "general" notice of appeal was received by the district clerk on June 18, 2002, and filed on September 30, 2003; that a pro se motion for new trial was filed on September 30, 2003; that a pro se motion for bail was received by the district clerk on November 13, 2002, and filed on September 30, 2003; and that notice of appeal was received by the district clerk on November 8, 2002, and was filed on September 30, 2003. Upon inspection of the clerk's record, the clerk of this court notified the parties in writing that it appeared this court did not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Appellant was directed to respond within 10 days showing grounds for continuing this appeal. Appellant has responded by filing a motion for appeal bond and to "release for appeals pending" and by filing a brief on the merits of his case attacking his conviction. In a letter to the clerk of this court, appellant has apologized for his failure to timely file various motions and explained his frustrations with understanding the legal system and limited access to a law library. Pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a), a notice of appeal must be timely filed in order to perfect an appeal. Appellant's "general" notice of appeal was not timely pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2. Likewise, the motion for new trial and the later notice of appeal were not timely. TEX.R.APP.P. 21.4 and 26.2. Absent a timely notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for extension of time, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998); Olivio v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.Cr.App. 1993); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988). We appreciate appellant's efforts to understand and comply with the appellate system; however, appellant has not invoked the jurisdiction of this court, and we lack the authority to consider his appeal. We note that the arguments appellant raises in his brief are collateral attacks on his original conviction and may not be raised in an appeal from the revocation of his community supervision. Vaughn v. State, 608 S.W.2d 237 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980); Puckett v. State, 801 S.W.2d 188 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet'n ref'd), cert. den'd, 502 U.S. 990 (1991). In addition, we note that a plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court's determination to revoke. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979). Appellant's motion is overruled, and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.