Robert L. Guerra v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 23, 2001
• Docket: 04-00-00684-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Nos. 04-00-00683-CR & 04-00-00684-CR Robert L. GUERRA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 1996-CR-3371 & 1996-CR-3470 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 23, 2001

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Robert L. Guerra pled guilty to two felonies and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision in accordance with the terms of his plea bargain agreement. Guerra seeks to appeal the trial court's judgments adjudicating his guilt and sentencing him to five years confinement and six months confinement, respectively.

To invoke the court's jurisdiction over these appeals, rule 25.2(b)(3) requires that the notice of appeal specify that the appeals are from a jurisdictional defect, specify that the substance of the appeals was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Because Guerra's general notices of appeal did not meet any of the requirements of rule 25.2(b)(3), this court only has jurisdiction to consider issues relating to the trial court's jurisdiction or the trial court's failure to conduct a punishment hearing after adjudicating guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001); Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, 2001 WL 321579 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

Given the jurisdictional limits on Guerra's appeals, we ordered appellate counsel to submit a letter identifying the issues to be raised on appeal and explaining how this court had jurisdiction to consider those issues. Appellate counsel responded by filing briefs asserting that the trial court erred in failing to empanel a jury to determine Guerra's competency to stand trial at the revocation proceeding. The issue raised in the briefs does not relate to the trial court's jurisdiction or to whether the trial court conducted a punishment hearing after adjudicating Guerra's guilt. The complaint raised in the briefs relates to the trial court's determination of whether to proceed with adjudication; however, article 42.12, section 5(b) precludes an appeal from that determination. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001).

Because the appeals do not raise any issues that this court has jurisdiction to consider, the appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DO NOT PUBLISH