Noberto Trevino Casanova v. State

Opinion

No. 04-02-00567-CR Noberto Trevino CASANOVA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2002-CR-2424 Honorable James E. Barlow, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 23, 2002

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Noberto Trevino Casanova pled guilty to arson as a repeat offender and, pursuant to a plea bargain, was sentenced to ten years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division. Casanova timely filed a notice of appeal.

Because Casanova was sentenced in accordance with a plea bargain agreement, the notice of appeal was required to 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). Casanova's notice of appeal states the appeal is from a jurisdictional defect. However, an appellant must comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3) both in form and in substance. Where the record does not affirmatively substantiate the recitations in the notice of appeal, this court's jurisdiction is not properly invoked. Garcia v. State, 76 S.W.3d 33, 36 n.3 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, pet. ref'd); Betz v. State, 36 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). The explanation of the alleged jurisdictional defect attached to Casanova's notice of appeal raises issues regarding the voluntariness of his plea and effectiveness of his counsel, but does not raise any jurisdictional issues. Moreover, on review of the clerk's record, no jurisdictional defects are apparent. We therefore ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellate counsel did not respond by letter as ordered; instead she responded by filing a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts the record does not establish a jurisdictional defect and there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Because we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal, we order the Anders brief filed by counsel stricken. The motion to withdraw and the appeal are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Do not publish