IN RE: SHERIFF CONRADO CANTU--Appeal from 197th District Court of Cameron County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-04-00453-CR

Case Date: 11/30/2004

Plaintiff: Margie Delgado

Defendant: State of Texas--Appeal from 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Preview:Margie Delgado v. State of Texas--Appeal from 379th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Nos. 04-01-00110-CR; 04-01-00111-CR; 04-01-00112-CR; 04-01-00113-CR; 04-01-00114-CR; 04-01-00115-CR & 04-01-00116-CR Margie Mata DELGADO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2000CR3180; 2000CR3181; 2000CR5578; 2000CR5580; 2000CR5181 & 2000CR5182 Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice Tom Rickhoff, Justice Alma L. L pez, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 23, 2001 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Margie Mata Delgado ("Delgado") filed a general notice of appeal to complain of her convictions based on a plea of guilty. The punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by Delgado. 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 Delgado's general notice 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. See Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, 2001 WL 321579 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2001); Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.). Given the jurisdictional limits on Delgado's appeal, 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 stating that no issues relating to the trial court's jurisdiction exist to be raised on appeal. Because the appeals do not raise any issues that this court has jurisdiction to consider, the appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/13928.html[8/20/2013 7:27:41 PM]

Download 13928.pdf