Opinion
No. 14-03-00030-CR
Dismissed and Opinion filed February 20, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 338th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 918,392
Panel consists of Justices YATES, HUDSON, and FROST.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, on December 17, 2002, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Because we have no jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss. To invoke an appellate court's jurisdiction over an appeal, an appellant must give timely and proper notice of appeal. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Appellant filed a timely general notice of appeal that did not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(b)(3). Rule 25.2(b)(3) provides that when an appeal is from a judgment rendered on a defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the State and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal must: (1) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (2) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (3) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Id. Because appellant's notice of appeal did not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3), we are without jurisdiction to consider any of appellant's issues, including the voluntariness of the plea. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.2d 77, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (holding that appellant who files general notice of appeal may not appeal voluntariness of negotiated plea). The rule does not mean, however, that an appellate court's jurisdiction is properly invoked by the filing of a specific notice of appeal complying only in form with the extra-notice requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3). Betz v. State, 36 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). An appellant must, in good faith, comply in both form and substance with the extra-notice requirements of the rule. Id.; see Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 662 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (stating that appellant's general notice of appeal could not truthfully state that trial court had given permission to appeal). Not only must the specific notice of appeal recite the applicable extra-notice requirements, the record must substantiate the recitations in the notice of appeal and the issues raised in the brief must relate to the specific claims in the notice of appeal. See Betz, 36 S.W.3d at 228-29; Sherman, 12 S.W.3d at 492. Statements required by the rule to be in the notice of appeal must be true to confer jurisdiction; mere allegations are not sufficient. Sherman, 12 S.W.3d at 492. (emphasis in original). In this case, the record contains no written motions ruled on before trial, and it reflects no jurisdictional defects. In addition, the trial court specifically denied appellant permission to appeal. Accordingly, appellant cannot amend his notice of appeal to correct its deficiencies. Cf. Bayless v. State, No. 56-01, (Tex.Crim.App. Dec. 18, 2002). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Judgment rendered and Opinion filed February 20, 2003.
The notice of appeal in this case was filed prior to the amendments to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure effective January 1, 2003.