KENNETH CRISSUP v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 13th District Court of Appeals » 2004 » KENNETH CRISSUP v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-04-00463-CR

Case Date: 10/28/2004

Plaintiff: KENNETH CRISSUP

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County

Preview:Juan Hernandez Fuentes v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 293rd Judicial District Court of Maverick County
No. 04-99-00731-CR
Juan HERNANDEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas
Trial Court No. 98-05-04945-CR
Honorable Cynthia L. Mu iz, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice
Tom Rickhoff, Justice
Catherine Stone, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 9, 2001
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant Juan Hernandez pled guilty to two counts of possession of marijuana
and pled true to a prior felony for enhancement purposes. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed to a fifteen
year cap and agreed not to oppose a lesser sentence. The trial court found Hernandez guilty and sentenced him to
fifteen years imprisonment. In two appellate issues, Hernandez asserts his plea was involuntary and ineffective
assistance of counsel rendered his plea involuntary.
When a judgment is rendered on a defendant's plea of guilty pursuant to a plea bargain in a felony case and the
punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant,
the notice of appeal must assert one of the following: (1) that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (2) that the
substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (3) that the trial court granted
permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3); Young v. State, 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A
timely notice of appeal which complies with Rule 25.2(b)(3) is necessary to confer jurisdiction on this court. See State
v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Once the time for perfecting the appeal has passed, an appellant
may not retroactively confer jurisdiction on this court by filing an amended notice of appeal. See Id. at 413-14. This
court's jurisdiction is limited to the matters specified in the rule, whether the errors occur before or after the guilty plea.
See Cooper v. State, No. 1100-99, slip op. at 6-7, 2001 WL 321579, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2001). When Rule
25.2(b)(3) applies and a general notice of appeal is filed, we may review only issues concerning the trial court's
jurisdiction. See Martinez v. State, 5 S.W.3d 722, 724-25 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.).
Rule 25.2(b)(3) applies to this appeal, and Hernandez did not file a notice of appeal complying with the Rule.
Hernandez's brief does not raise any issues concerning the trial court's jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/13868.html[8/20/2013 7:27:36 PM]

Download 13868.pdf