Christopher Jovel Garcia v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 25, 2002
Docket11-01-00324-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Christopher Jovel Garcia v. State (Christopher Jovel Garcia v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Christopher Jovel Garcia v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

Christopher Jovel Garcia

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-01-00324-CR B Appeal from Dallas County

State of Texas

Appellee

The trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of failure to register as a sex offender.  Appellant entered a plea of true to an enhancement allegation.  Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 6 years and a $2,500 fine.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant filed a general notice of appeal rather than the specific notice of appeal required by TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(b)(3) in guilty plea - plea bargain agreement situations.  Appellant later amended his notice of appeal to comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3); however, this amended notice of appeal was not filed within the original time requirements for perfecting an appeal under TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2 and is not effective.  State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex.Cr.App.2000); Brown v. State, 53 S.W.3d 734 (Tex.App. - Dallas 2001, pet=n ref=d); Martinez v. State, 50 S.W.3d 572 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth 2001, pet=n ref=d); Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 725 (Tex.App. - Houtson [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet=n); Betz v. State, 36 S.W.3d 227 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet=n); Craddock v. State, 32 S.W.3d 886 (Tex.App. - Waco 2000, no pet=n).

Because appellant failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3), the appellant jurisdiction of this court has not been invoked.  White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424 (Tex.Cr.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880 (Tex.Cr.App.2001).  We are without authority to consider this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

July 25, 2002                                                               PER CURIAM

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Betz v. State
36 S.W.3d 227 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Vidaurri v. State
49 S.W.3d 880 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
White v. State
61 S.W.3d 424 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Brown v. State
53 S.W.3d 734 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
State v. Riewe
13 S.W.3d 408 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Martinez v. State
50 S.W.3d 572 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Craddock v. State
32 S.W.3d 886 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Garcia v. State
43 S.W.3d 725 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Christopher Jovel Garcia v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-jovel-garcia-v-state-texapp-2002.