Joseph Almanza v. State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 27, 2002
Docket04-01-00132-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Joseph Almanza v. State of Texas (Joseph Almanza v. State of Texas) 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
Joseph Almanza v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

No. 04-01-00132-CR
Joseph ALMANZA,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2000-CR-4534
Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 27, 2002

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Joseph Almanza pled nolo contendere to a felony and was sentenced in accordance with the terms of his plea bargain agreement. Almanza filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment, in which he stated the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect.

To invoke the court's jurisdiction over this appeal, Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that the notice of appeal state the appeal is from a jurisdictional defect, the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Appellant must comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3) both in form and in substance. Where the record does not affirmatively substantiate the recitation in the notice of appeal, this court's jurisdiction is not properly invoked and we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. Betz v. State, 36 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet. h.); Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.).

The record affirmatively reflects the trial court had jurisdiction over the cause and the appellant. Because the recitation in Almanza's notice of appeal is not substantiated by the record, the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3) are not met and this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal. See White v. State No. 123-01, 2001 WL 1539153 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2001); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Likewise, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the motion to withdraw filed by Almanza's court-appointed counsel. We therefore dismiss the appeal and the motion to withdraw for lack of jurisdiction.

Do not publish

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)
Cooper v. State
45 S.W.3d 77 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Sherman v. State
12 S.W.3d 489 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
White v. State
61 S.W.3d 424 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Young v. State
8 S.W.3d 656 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
State v. Riewe
13 S.W.3d 408 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Joseph Almanza v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-almanza-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2002.