Margie Delgado v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 23, 2001
• Docket: 04-01-00111-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Nos. 04-01-00110-CR; 04-01-00111-CR; 04-01-00112-CR; 04-01-00113-CR; 04-01-00114-CR; 04-01-00115-CR & 04-01-00116-CR Margie Mata DELGADO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2000CR3180; 2000CR3181; 2000CR5578; 2000CR5580; 2000CR5181 & 2000CR5182 Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. López, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 23, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Margie Mata Delgado ("Delgado") filed a general notice of appeal to complain of her convictions based on a plea of guilty. The punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by Delgado. To invoke the court's jurisdiction over these appeals, rule 25.2(b)(3) requires that the notice of appeal specify that the appeals are from a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of the appeals 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 Delgado'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. See Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, 2001 WL 321579 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2001); Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Given the jurisdictional limits on Delgado'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 responded by stating that no issues relating to the trial court's jurisdiction exist to be raised on appeal. Because the appeals do not raise any issues that this court has jurisdiction to consider, the appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DO NOT PUBLISH