Hemir Frutiz v. State
This text of Hemir Frutiz v. State (Hemir Frutiz 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.
Opinion
Hemir Frutiz was convicted in the 209th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, of the offense of possession of cocaine, between four and 200 grams. Pursuant to a written plea bargaining agreement which was followed by the court, Frutiz pleaded guilty to a second-degree felony. Frutiz was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, as provided by the plea bargaining agreement. He was represented by retained counsel at trial.
Frutiz filed a pro se Notice of Appeal, which states only that he wishes to appeal from his conviction. The Notice of Appeal does not contain the statements that Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3) requires in order to vest jurisdiction in this court over an appeal from a conviction pursuant to a plea bargaining agreement which was followed by the court.
When an appellant fails to comply with the extra-notice requirements of Rule 25.2(b), the courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal, even for voluntariness issues. Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). The Notice of Appeal in this case does not specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, it does not specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, and it does not state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. It is merely a general notice of appeal, and it is therefore insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Johnson v. State, Nos. 0956-01, 0957-01, 2002 WL 31018589, at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 11, 2002); Whitt v. State, 45 S.W.3d 274, 275 (Tex. App.-Austin 2001, no pet.).
Absent appellate jurisdiction, we can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523-25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Ben Z. Grant
Justice
Date Submitted: December 2, 2002
Date Decided: December 3, 2002
Do Not Publish
lse" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-11-00078-CR
IN RE: BOBBY YATES
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Bobby Yates filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asked this Court to order the 6th Judicial District Court of Lamar County to withdraw a gag order entered in connection with an underlying sexual assault case, and also to direct that court to withdraw its denial of his motion for continuance. We have received a response from the trial judge, with copies of orders attached which rescind the gag order in its entirety and grant a continuance so that a newly retained attorney can represent Yates at trial. The issues raised by the mandamus are therefore moot.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Bailey C. Moseley
Date Submitted: April 25, 2011
Date Decided: April 26, 2011
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hemir Frutiz v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hemir-frutiz-v-state-texapp-2002.