Carlos Armadillo v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 19, 2001
• Docket: 13-00-00121-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-00-121-CR AND 13-00-122-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

CARLOS ARMADILLO

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Dorsey and Rodriguez

Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant, Carlos Armadillo, entered an agreed plea of guilty in cause number 98-CR-3074-A to the offenses of indecency to a child, aggravated sexual assault of a child, and injury to a child, and in cause number 98-CR-3073-A to aggravated sexual assault of a child.⁽¹⁾ Pursuant to the plea bargain, the trial court sentenced appellant to eight years imprisonment in each cause number, the sentences to run concurrently. The court admonished Armadillo he could appeal only with permission of the trial court. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal in each cause number, requesting an appeal and a court-appointed attorney. No other notice appears in the record of either cause number.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967), Armadillo's counsel filed an Anders brief presenting one arguable point wherein he complains of ineffective assistance of counsel. Without addressing counsel's contentions, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because Armadillo's general notice provides no basis for an appeal from the plea-bargained judgment.

Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that following an agreed plea of guilty, and where the punishment does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, a notice of appeal must specify that (1) the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, (2) 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. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).

Because Armadillo entered agreed pleas of guilty, and because the punishment assessed in each cause number did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor, rule 25.2(b)(3) limits our jurisdiction over his appeals. First, Armadillo asserts no jurisdictional defects, claiming only ineffective assistance of counsel.⁽²⁾ Second, he does not contend that his appeals are from issues raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. Finally, Armadillo's notices of appeal do not set out that the trial court granted him permission to pursue his appeals.

Because we conclude this Court is without jurisdiction, we dismiss Armadillo's appeals.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Do not publish

.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 19th day of April, 2001.

1. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11, 22.021(a)(B)(ii), & 22.04(a) (Vernon Supp. 2001).

2. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not jurisdictional. See Lyon v. State, 972 S.W.2d 832, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (citing Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (jurisdiction is power of court over "subject matter" of case, conveyed by statute or constitutional provision, coupled with "personal" jurisdiction over accused)).