Marvin Hall v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 2, 2003
• Docket: 09-02-00296-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-02-295 CR

NO. 09-02-296 CR

MARVIN PATRICK HALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 78974 and 84335

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marvin Hall entered a no contest plea in Cause No. 78974 to an indictment for the third degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (a), (c) (Vernon Supp. 2003). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, and on October 5, 2000, placed Hall on community supervision for six years.

In a subsequent hearing, the trial court found that Hall violated the terms of the community supervision order as alleged in the State's motion to adjudicate guilt. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement regarding the punishment to be assessed, the trial court sentenced Hall to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for two years.

On the day Hall pleaded "true" in Cause No. 78974, Hall pleaded guilty in Cause No. 84335 to an indictment for the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (a), (b) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Following a plea bargain agreement between Hall and the State, the trial court convicted Hall and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently.

Appellate counsel filed briefs that conclude no arguable error is presented in these appeals. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 21, 2002, we granted Hall an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. Because the appeals involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

The general notices of appeal filed by Hall failed to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428-29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). ⁽¹⁾

We have reviewed the clerk's records and the reporter's records, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Hall raises no points of error over which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

APPEALS DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 26, 2003

Opinion Delivered April 2, 2003

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.

1. For appeals commenced before January 1, 2003, the notice of appeal must specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or state the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).