Sharon Ann Robertson v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 24, 2003
• Docket: 09-02-00342-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-02-342 CR

SHARON ANN ROBERTSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 85952

MEMORANDUM OPINION ⁽¹⁾

Sharon Ann Robertson pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of forgery by passing. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 32.21 (Vernon 2003). The trial court sentenced Robertson to twelve months of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State Jail Division.

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 May 15, 2003, Robertson was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.

The State contends that Robertson was sentenced in accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement that capped the punishment range at fourteen months of confinement in a state jail facility. The Clerk's record contains a document, titled "Agreed Punishment Recommendation," that includes a "non-binding recommendation" to the Court that there be a "14 month cap." The trial court initially admonished Robertson for an open plea, but defense counsel reminded the court that "There is a 14-month cap we agreed to." The trial court then admonished Robertson as follows:

"If I decide to place you in the state jail, the D.A.s are recommending that I do not go over 14 months in the state jail. If I decide that you should go for more than 14 months, then I have to give you the opportunity to withdraw your plea and start all over again.

. . . .

But if I go anywhere from 180 days up to 14 months, you will not have the opportunity to withdraw your plea.

Although the record contains inconsistencies, it is apparent a plea bargain existed. See Lemoins v. State, 37 S.W.3d 556, 557-59 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.). Because the appeal was perfected 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). The general notice of appeal filed by Robertson does not meet the requirements of the Rule; it thus 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).

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). Robertson raises no points of error over which we have jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted September 12, 2003

Opinion Delivered September 24, 2003

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess, and Gaultney, JJ.

1. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.