Opinion
No. 05-02-00288-CR
Opinion Filed January 14, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 199-80969-01. Dismissed.
Before Justices BRIDGES, FRANCIS, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kenneth Gerald Mansell appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court found appellant guilty and, in accordance with the plea bargain, assessed punishment at seven years confinement. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concluded that 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 that he has a right to file a pro se response. Appellant filed a pro se response and in his sole issue, contended he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because appellant was convicted pursuant to a plea bargain, his notice of appeal had to state the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, a matter raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or the trial court gave permission to appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(b)(3) (former rule). Appellant's notice of appeal did not meet these requirements. He 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 the appeal. Id. The day before filing his notice of appeal, appellant filed a handwritten "Request For Right To File Notice Of Appeal On Plea Bargain" in which he complained he was misled by his counsel. Even if we were to construe appellant's request as a notice of appeal, his complaint about counsel's assistance does not comply with the notice requirements of rule 25.2(b)(3) and does not confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response. 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.