Opinion
No. 05-02-00685-CR.
Opinion Filed March 27, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F98-55743-QJ. DISMISS.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices MOSELEY and O'NEILL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Shanika Yvette Ross appeals her conviction for credit card abuse. Before a magistrate, appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea to the charge. The trial court adopted the magistrate's findings and, following the plea bargain, deferred adjudicating appellant's guilt and placed her on three years' community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt. Appellant pleaded true to the State's allegations. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at 720 days' confinement in a state jail facility. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he 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 she 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, her notice of appeal upon adjudication of guilt had to state the appeal was for a jurisdictional defect, a matter raised by a 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, she 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 her notice of appeal before January 1, 2003, we apply former rule 25.2(b)(3), which was in effect at the time appellant filed her notice of appeal.