O'Neal Guidry v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 2, 2003
Docket09-02-00297-CR
StatusPublished

This text of O'Neal Guidry v. State (O'Neal Guidry 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.

Bluebook
O'Neal Guidry v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-02-297 CR



ONEAL S. GUIDRY, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 83641



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Oneal S. Guidry pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of less than one gram. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (a)(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Following a plea bargain agreement between Guidry and the State, the trial court sentenced Guidry to one year of confinement in a state jail facility. Guidry signed an express waiver of his right to appeal, then unsuccessfully sought permission to appeal.

Appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes no arguable error is presented in this appeal. 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 December 19, 2002, Guidry was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. Because the appeal involves the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

The general notice of appeal filed by Guidry 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 record and the reporter's record, 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). Guidry raises no points of error over which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

APPEAL 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Do Not Publish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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Cooper v. State
45 S.W.3d 77 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
White v. State
61 S.W.3d 424 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
O'Neal Guidry v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-guidry-v-state-texapp-2003.