Arturo San Miguel v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 23, 2001
• Docket: 04-01-00016-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 04-01-00016-CR Arturo SAN MIGUEL, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2000CR2233 Honorable Mary Román, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 23, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Arturo San Miguel ("San Miguel") pled nolo contendere to a felony and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision in accordance with the terms of his plea bargain agreement. San Miguel seeks to appeal the trial court's judgment adjudicating his guilt and sentencing him to ten years confinement.

To invoke the court's jurisdiction over this appeal, rule 25.2(b)(3) requires that the notice of appeal specify that the appeal is from a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Because San Miguel's general notice of appeal did not meet any of the requirements of rule 25.2(b)(3), this court only has jurisdiction to consider issues relating to the trial court's jurisdiction or the trial court's failure to conduct a punishment hearing after adjudicating guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, 2001 WL 321579 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Given the jurisdictional limits on San Miguel's appeal, we ordered appellate counsel to submit a letter identifying the issues to be raised on appeal and explaining how this court had jurisdiction to consider those issues. Appellate counsel failed to respond. The record fails to demonstrate that an issue exists relating to the trial court's jurisdiction or the failure of the trial judge to conduct a punishment hearing after adjudicating San Miguel's guilt. Because the appeal does not raise any issues that this court has jurisdiction to consider, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DO NOT PUBLISH