No. 12-03-00027-CR
Opinion delivered May 30, 2003 Do Not Publish
Appeal From The 294th Judicial District Court Of Van Zandt County, Texas
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., and GRIFFITH, J.
PER CURIAM
Hazel Bernice Tilton ("Appellant") appeals her conviction for felony driving while intoxicated, for which she was sentenced to imprisonment for six years and fined five thousand dollars. Appellant's 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 Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Background
Appellant was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated, a third degree felony. Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, Appellant pleaded guilty as charged. In accordance with the terms of Appellant's plea bargain, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for six years and fined Appellant five thousand dollars. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Jurisdiction
Appellant's counsel initially notes that this court is without jurisdiction to consider this matter. In a plea bargain case-that is, a case in which defendant's plea is guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant-a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court's permission to appeal. Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(a)(2). Moreover, in a plea bargain case, where the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended, and where the trial court does not grant Appellant permission to appeal, an appellant may not appeal contending that his plea was entered involuntarily. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 77 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). The record in the instant case reflects that Appellant entered into a plea bargain with the State, pleaded guilty, waived her right to appeal, and was sentenced in accordance with the terms of her plea bargain. The record neither reflects that the trial court granted Appellant permission to appeal her case, nor includes any written pretrial motions Appellant filed which the trial court ruled upon before trial. As such, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 25.2(a) and the court of criminal appeals' holding in Cooper , we hold that we are without jurisdiction to consider this matter. Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Even if we had determined that we had jurisdiction over this matter, the outcome would not have been favorable to Appellant. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous . Appellant's counsel states that if this court does not dismiss for want of jurisdiction, he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders , Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), Appellant's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. Conclusion
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with our consideration of this matter. Having done so and determining that we do not have jurisdiction over the matter, Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction .