Opinion
Nos. 05-02-01150-CR, 05-02-01151-CR, 05-02-01152-CR.
Opinion Filed April 8, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F01-74038-Tjn, F01-74136-Wjn, F01-74240-Wjn. Dismissed.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices FRANCIS and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Harry Wayne Davis appeals three convictions for robbery. Appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas to the charges and pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph in each case. The trial court found appellant guilty and, following the plea bargain agreements, assessed punishment in each case at fifteen years confinement and a $1500 fine. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant that he has a right to file a pro se response. Appellant, however, did not file a pro se response. Because appellant was convicted pursuant to plea bargains, his notices of appeal had to state the appeals were for jurisdictional defects, a matter raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or the trial court gave permission to appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(b)(3) (former rule). Appellant's notices of appeal did not meet any of these requirements. Thus, he only filed general notices of appeal. See Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). A general notice of appeal does not invoke this Court's jurisdiction to consider these appeals. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We conclude the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. Because there is nothing presented over which we have jurisdiction, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.
Rule 25.2(b) was amended to delete the provisions of subsection (b)(3), effective January 1, 2003. Because appellant filed his notice of appeal before January 1, 2003, we apply former rule 25.2(b)(3), which was in effect at the time appellant filed his notice of appeal.