Walter Wayne Sigford v. State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

Walter Wayne Sigford v. State of Texas

72 S.W.3d 679, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 7571

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 7, 2001

Docket09-00-00503-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 S.W.3d 679 (Walter Wayne Sigford v. State of Texas) 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

Walter Wayne Sigford v. State of Texas, 72 S.W.3d 679, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 7571 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

RONALD L. WALKER, Chief Justice.

Walter Wayne Sigford pleaded guilty to the felony offense of Manufacture of a Controlled Substance. Sigford and the State agreed to a punishment recommendation of fifteen (15) years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The record reflects that the trial court followed the punishment recommendation and assessed the fifteen (15) year term of incarceration. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal. Appellant later filed an amended notice of appeal adding his wish to appeal “the vol-untariness of his GUILTY plea.”

Neither notice of appeal complies with Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(b)(3) in that neither notice specifies that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect of the trial court, nor that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on prior to trial, nor that the trial court granted Sigford permission to appeal. Because Sigford’s notices of appeal do not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3), our jurisdiction to entertain his appeal has not been invoked. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). As this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any matters raised by Sigford in his direct appeal, our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

OPINION

RONALD L. WALKER, Chief Justice.

Walter Wayne Sigford pleaded guilty to the felony offense of Manufacture of a Controlled Substance. Sigford and the State agreed to a punishment recommendation of fifteen (15) years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The record reflects that the trial court followed the punishment recommendation and assessed the fifteen (15) year term of incarceration. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal. Appellant later filed an amended notice of appeal adding his wish to appeal “the vol-untariness of his GUILTY plea.”

Neither notice of appeal complies with Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(b)(3) in that neither notice specifies that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect of the trial court, nor that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on prior to trial, nor that the trial court granted Sigford permission to appeal. Because Sigford’s notices of appeal do not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3), our jurisdiction to entertain his appeal has not been invoked. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). As this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any matters raised by Sigford in his direct appeal, our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.W.3d 679, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 7571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-wayne-sigford-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2001.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack