Jeremy Ray Appleton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 40th District Court of Ellis County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 1998 » Jeremy Ray Appleton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 40th District Court of Ellis County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-98-00032-CR

Case Date: 10/21/1998

Plaintiff: Jeremy Ray Appleton

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 40th District Court of Ellis County

Preview:Jeremy Ray Appleton v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 40th District Court of Ellis County
Jeremy Ray Appleton v. The State of Texas /**/
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-98-032-CR
JEREMY RAY APPLETON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 40th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court # 22,460-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jeremy Ray Appleton pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
22.021(a)(1)(B), (2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 1998). Pursuant to the State s plea recommendation, the court deferred an
adjudication of Appleton s guilt; placed him on unadjudicated community supervision for eight years; and required him
to pay a $500 fine while on community supervision. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate Appleton s
guilt. Appleton pleaded true to the allegations, and the court adjudicated his guilt. The court sentenced him to sixteen
years imprisonment and a $500 fine.
A defendant who has pleaded guilty in exchange for unadjudicated community supervision must comply with Rule
25.2(b)(3) of the appellate rules when he seeks to appeal a subsequent adjudication and sentencing. See Watson v.
State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. Crim. App 1996) (applying former appellate rule 40(b)(1)). Rule 25.2(b)(3) provides
in pertinent part that if a defendant seeks to appeal:
from a judgment rendered on the defendant s plea of guilty or nolo contendere under Code of Criminal Procedure
article 1.15, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to
by the defendant, the notice must:
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2599.html[8/20/2013 7:12:25 PM]

(A) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect;
(B) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or
(C) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal.
Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).
Appleton filed a general notice of appeal which does not recite that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; that the
substance of the appeal was raised and ruled on by pretrial motion; or that the trial court granted him permission to
appeal. Thus, Appleton s notice of appeal does not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3).
Because Appleton s notice of appeal does not comply with these requirements, we have no jurisdiction over this
appeal. See Okigbo v. State, 960 S.W.2d 923, 925 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref d); Carothers v. State,
928 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1996, pet. ref d)(both applying former rule 40(b)(1)). Accordingly, we
dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Cummings, and
Justice Vance
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed October 21, 1998
Do not publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2599.html[8/20/2013 7:12:25 PM]

Download 2599.pdf