Michael Lou Garrett v. Joe S. Nunn, et al--Appeal from 181st District Court of Potter County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 7th District Court of Appeals » 2007 » Michael Lou Garrett v. Joe S. Nunn, et al--Appeal from 181st District Court of Potter County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 07-06-00428-CV

Case Date: 10/31/2007

Plaintiff: DUSTIN REID JEFFERS

Defendant: THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 105th District Court of Kleberg County

Preview:DUSTIN REID JEFFERS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--
Appeal from 105th District Court of Kleberg County
NUMBERS 13-01-00599-CR
13-01-00605-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI BEDINBURG
DUSTIN REID JEFFERS, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas.
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez
Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant, Dustin Reid Jeffers, pleaded: (1) guilty in cause no. 13-01-00599-CR[1] to the
offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft, and (2) guilty in cause no. 13-01-00605-CR[2] to the
offense of delivery of heroin. The trial court found him guilty of both offenses and, in accordance with the plea
agreement in each cause, assessed appellant=s punishment at eight years imprisonment for each offense, suspended the
orders of confinement, and placed him on community supervision for a term of eight years.
The State subsequently filed a motion in each cause to revoke appellant=s community supervision. After hearing the
motions, the trial court found that appellant had violated his community supervision, revoked his community
supervision, and sentenced him to six years imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice for each offense. Appellant timely filed a pro se notice of appeal.
Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in each cause in which he has concluded that the appeals are wholly frivolous and
without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), as they present a
professional evaluation of why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)).
Appellant=s counsel certified in the briefs that he has informed appellant of his right to review the appellate records
and to file pro se briefs. No such briefs have been filed.
We must first determine whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider these appeals. Because appellant appeals from
judgments rendered on guilty pleas made pursuant to plea bargain agreements, and the punishment assessed by the trial
court did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, we must consider
the threshold issue of whether appellant=s notices of appeal are sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PSDs2/12227.html[8/20/2013 9:22:24 PM]

The record shows that appellant filed only general notices of appeal. Because appellant=s notices of appeal do not
specify that the appeals are for jurisdictional defects, from rulings on pre-trial motions, or that the trial court granted
appellant permission to appeal, they do not comply with the specific notice requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 25.2(b)(3). See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3).
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when an appellant fails to comply with the extra-notice
requirements of rule 25.2(b), the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal, even for voluntariness
issues. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that rule 25.2(b) does not permit the
voluntariness of a plea to be raised on appeal, unless the trial court has granted permission for an appeal). Accordingly,
we conclude that this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider these appeals.
Upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief, appellate courts must conduct Aa full examination of all the proceeding[s]
to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@ Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have carefully reviewed
the appellate record and counsel=s briefs, find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals, and agree
with appellant=s counsel that the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.
We dismiss both of these appeals for want of jurisdiction.
FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA
Justice
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed this the
15th day of August, 2002.
[1] Trial court cause no. 93-CRF-298-1.
[2] Trial court cause no. 93-CRF-349.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PSDs2/12227.html[8/20/2013 9:22:24 PM]

Download 12227.pdf