Opinion
No. 05-02-01599-CR No. 05-02-01600-CR
Opinion Filed May 28, 2003. Do Not Publish
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F92-25925-LV, F92-25961-LV DISMISSED
Before Justices JAMES, FRANCIS, and LANG.
OPINION
In two cases, Tina Marie Nally waived a jury trial and entered open nolo contendere pleas to delivery of dihydrocodeinone in an amount less than twenty-eight grams (cause no. 05-02-01599-CR) and delivery of dextropropoxyphene in an amount less than twenty-eight grams (cause no. 05-02-01600-CR). In each case, the trial court sentenced appellant to ten years confinement, probated for six years, and a $500 fine. Subsequently, the State moved to revoke appellant's probation, alleging she violated the terms of her probation. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations at a hearing on the motion. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's probation, and pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, sentenced her to five years confinement in each case. In three points of error, appellant contends the indictment in the first case is void, she was improperly admonished as to the punishment range in both cases, and the judgments placing her on community supervision are void. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss these appeals. In her first point of error, appellant argues that because the indictment in cause no. 05-02-01599-CR is not legally sufficient, it is void. However, if a defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in an indictment before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, she waives the right to object to the defect on appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.14(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Because appellant did not raise this complaint before she was placed on probation, we do not have jurisdiction to address the issue, and dismiss the point of error. In her second point of error, appellant contends she was not legally admonished as to the punishment range in these cases when she originally pleaded guilty. Appellant argues both the written and oral admonishments incorrectly stated the punishment ranges for the offenses. A defendant placed on probation may raise issues relating to the original plea proceedings only in appeals taken when probation is first imposed. See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Appellant could have appealed the order placing her on probation, but did not. We do not have jurisdiction to address her complaint, and dismiss the point of error. In her third point of error, appellant argues the judgments placing her on community supervision are "void" because they incorrectly state the degree of the offenses in both cases, and incorrectly state the term of probation in cause no. 05-02-01599-CR. Again, appellant could have appealed from the orders placing her on probation, but did not. She cannot raise the complaints about the errors in those orders now. See id. We dismiss appellant's third point of error. Because appellant has raised no issues over which we have jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal in each case for want of jurisdiction.