Opinion
No. 05-02-00843-CR
Opinion Filed July 31, 2003 Do Not Publish
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F01-41321-TU. DISMISSED
Before Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Whittington and Richter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Perry Lewis Smart appeals his conviction for forgery. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs. The trial court found appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true. Following the plea bargain, the court assessed punishment at two years' imprisonment and a $2,500 fine. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 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 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 a plea bargain, his notice of appeal had to state the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, 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). General notices of appeal do not invoke this Court's jurisdiction to consider this appeal. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Because there is nothing presented over which we have jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal 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 notices of appeal before January 1, 2003, we apply former rule 25.2(b)(3), which was in effect at the time appellant filed his notices of appeal.
Appellant filed two handwritten notices of appeal and a notice of appeal using a form commonly used in Dallas County. None of these notices complied with rule 25.2(b)(3).