Paul Monfort v. State

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-95-00718-CR

Paul Monfort, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 44,186, HONORABLE RICK MORRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him of aggravated robbery and judicially confessed to the offense. The district court found him guilty and, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, assessed punishment at imprisonment for forty years.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably support the appeal. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant also exercised his right to file a pro se brief.

Appellant filed no pretrial motions and his notice of appeal does not state that the district court gave permission to appeal. In fact, the transcript contains the court's written order denying permission to appeal. Both counsel and appellant contend the court abused its discretion by denying permission to appeal, but our reading of rule 40(b)(1) convinces us that the court's discretion thereunder is essentially unlimited. The first point of error in each brief is overruled.

We have jurisdiction in this cause only to consider jurisdictional issues. Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Hutchins v. State, 887 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, pet. ref'd); Fowler v. State, 874 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, pet. ref'd); Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1). The remaining arguable points of error in counsel's brief and points of error in appellant's pro se brief do not question the jurisdiction of the district court over either the subject matter of this cause or appellant personally. Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). In light of the frivolous appeal brief, we have examined the record and find no basis for challenging the district court's jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, we do not have jurisdiction of this appeal.

The State's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Kidd

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: July 17, 1996

Do Not Publish