Peter Louis Torres v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Peter Louis Torres v. State

DecidedJune 14, 2001

Docket03-00-00726-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Peter Louis Torres v. State (Peter Louis Torres 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

Peter Louis Torres v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00726-CR Peter Louis Torres, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-99-146, HONORABLE DON B. MORGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

In July 1999, appellant Peter Louis Torres pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 1994). The district court found that the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt and, as called for in a plea bargain agreement, deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for three years. In September 2000, the court granted the State's motion to adjudicate, revoked supervision, and sentenced appellant to imprisonment for ten years. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal.

When a defendant pleads guilty to a felony and the punishment assessed does not exceed that recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal must state that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, or that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). This rule applies to an appeal following revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision if the defendant was originally placed on deferred adjudication pursuant to a plea bargain. Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellant's notice of appeal does not comply with rule 25.2(b)(3) and fails to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Whitt v. State, No. 03-00-00194-CR (Tex. App.--Austin April 19, 2001, no pet.); see also Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, slip op. at 6-8 (Tex. Crim. App. April 4, 2001).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Yeakel and Patterson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: June 14, 2001

Do Not Publish

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

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00726-CR Peter Louis Torres, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-99-146, HONORABLE DON B. MORGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

In July 1999, appellant Peter Louis Torres pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 1994). The district court found that the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt and, as called for in a plea bargain agreement, deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for three years. In September 2000, the court granted the State's motion to adjudicate, revoked supervision, and sentenced appellant to imprisonment for ten years. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal.

When a defendant pleads guilty to a felony and the punishment assessed does not exceed that recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal must state that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, or that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). This rule applies to an appeal following revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision if the defendant was originally placed on deferred adjudication pursuant to a plea bargain. Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellant's notice of appeal does not comply with rule 25.2(b)(3) and fails to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Whitt v. State, No. 03-00-00194-CR (Tex. App.--Austin April 19, 2001, no pet.); see also Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, slip op. at 6-8 (Tex. Crim. App. April 4, 2001).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Yeakel and Patterson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: June 14, 2001

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Peter Louis Torres v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-louis-torres-v-state-texapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack