Daffrean Devon Jenkins v. State ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                                  NO. 07-01-0361-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT AMARILLO
    PANEL A
    JUNE 28, 2002
    ______________________________
    DAFFREAN DEVON JENKINS, APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
    _________________________________
    FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
    NO. A13835-0009; HONORABLE JACK R. MILLER, JUDGE
    _______________________________
    Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
    Pursuant to a plea bargain, on February 2, 2001, appellant Daffrean Devon Jenkins
    was convicted of forgery of a financial instrument and punishment was assessed at two
    years confinement in a state jail facility and a $500 fine. The sentence was suspended,
    but after hearing evidence that appellant had violated the conditions of community
    supervision, the trial court revoked community supervision and imposed the original
    punishment. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s
    judgment. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in support of a
    motion to withdraw. Based upon the rationale expressed herein, the appeal is dismissed
    for want of jurisdiction.
    In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has diligently
    reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error or grounds
    upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744-45, 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    (1967); Monroe v. State, 
    671 S.W.2d 583
    , 585 (Tex.App.--San
    Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. In
    compliance with High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has
    candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court's
    judgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant, and
    informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel
    has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro
    se brief if he desired to do so. Appellant did not file a pro se brief nor did the State favor
    us with a brief.
    Appellate jurisdiction is invoked by filing a timely and proper notice of appeal. See
    State v. Riewe, 13 S.W3d 408, 410 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000). To perfect an appeal from a
    judgment that was rendered on a defendant’s guilty plea and in which the punishment
    assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to
    1
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    (1967).
    2
    by the defendant, a notice of appeal must (a) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional
    defect; (b) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled
    on before trial; or (c) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App.
    P. 25.2(b)(3); see also White v. State, 
    61 S.W.3d 424
    , 428-29 (Tex.Cr.App. 2001) (holding
    that the notice requirements set forth in Rule 25.2(b)(3) should be interpreted according
    to their plain meaning and that failing to meet the requirements fails to invoke the
    jurisdiction of an appellate court); see also Vidaurri v. State, 
    49 S.W.3d 880
    , 884
    (Tex.Cr.App. 2001) (holding that the notice of appeal limitations of Rule 25.2(b)(3) apply
    to an appeal from a conviction rendered on a guilty plea with agreed punishment).
    Appellant’s notice of appeal does not contain any of the requirements set forth in
    Rule 25.2(b)(3) necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction over his conviction. Thus, our
    jurisdiction has not been invoked and the appeal must be dismissed. Accordingly, the
    appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction and we are without jurisdiction to rule on
    counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    Don H. Reavis
    Justice
    Do not publish.
    3