NO. 07-03-0038-CR 07-03-0040-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C MARCH 12, 2004

______________________________ DAVID SOLOMON MAZE, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

NO. 78589 , 77617; HONORABL E LARRY GIST, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

MEMORAND UM OPINION Appellant

David Solomon Maze appeals two convi ct ions for possessi on of a controlled substance (cocain e). We dismiss for lack of jurisdic tion in p art and a ffirm in p art.
Pursuantto a plea bargain, appellant pled gu ilty to two charges of posse ssion of a controlled substance in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County. On June 3, 1999,2

appellant appeared and pled guilty to a charge of possession of cocaine in an amount of atleast one gram but less than four grams, a third degree felony (Appellate CauseNo. 07- 03-0038-CR, Trial Cause No. 78589). At the same hearin g, appe llant pl ed guilt y to possession of cocaine in an amount of at least four gram s, but less than 200 gram s, a second degree felony (

Appella te CauseNo. 07-0 3-0040-C R, Trial Cause N o. 77617 ). Prior to this hearin g, a ppellant signed written plea admonishments, stipulations, wai vers and judicial admissi ons regar ding bot h charges. He also mad e his pl ea of gui lty on th e record while in open court. The trial court accepted the puni shment recommendati ons rela ting to these charges thatappellant and the prosecutor had agreed upon and sentenced appellant to community supervision for a period of ten years with adjudication deferred and a $1,000 fine for each charge.
On July 10, 2000, appellant appeared in court and pled gu ilty to an additional charge of possession of cocaine. As this n ew convi cti on violated the terms of appellant’s community

supervision, the State filed motions t o r evoke probation on the earlier possession charges. Appellant pled “true” to a total of five counts of violating the terms of his community supervision. The trial court entered a judgment of gui lty on the third degree felonycharge but abated the motion on the se cond degree felony charge pending appellant’s successful co mp letion of a Substance Abu se Felon y Punish ment Faci lity program. The tria l court se ntenced a ppellan t to ten yea rs in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Instituti onal Di vision, for the th ird degre e convic tion but suspende d th e term for te n years.3

On October 2 1, 2002, appella nt again appeare d before the trial court on motions to revoke probatio n. A ppellant ple d “true” to five vio lations of the ter ms of his community supervisio n, inclu ding eva ding detention a nd faili ng to ide ntify him self to apeace of ficer. The trial court granted both motions, adjudicated a ppellan t g uilty on the second degree felonyand sentenced ap pellant to ten yea rs confin ement in the Texa s Departm ent o f Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Appellant

filed separate not ices of appeal for each of these convictions and sentences. The notices are general notices of appe al.
Counsel for appell ant has filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and a Brief in Support thereof in each appeal. In support of t he motions to withdraw, counsel has certified that, in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the record has been diligently reviewed and, that in the opinion of counsel, the record reflects no reversible error or grounds upon which non-frivolo u s appeals can argu ably be predicated. Coun sel thus conclude s that t he ap peals ar e frivolous. Counsel has di scussed why, under the controlling authorities, there are no arguablyreversib le errorsin the tr ial cour t pr oceedin gs or judg ments. See High v. S tate , 573 S.W.2 d 807, 81 3 (Tex.C rim.App. 1 978).
Counsel has certified that a copy of the Andersbrief and Motions to Withdraw as Counsel have been served on appellant, and that co unse l ha s appropriately advised appellant

of his right to review

the record and file pro se responses. Appellant did not file
a pro se response
.4

In deferred adjudic ation proceedings, issues relating to the original deferred adjudication proceeding must be appealed when the deferred adjudication is firstimposed. See Vidaurri v. State , 49 S.W.3d 880, 884-86 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) ; Daniels v. State , 30 S.W.3d 407, 408(Tex.Cri m.App. 20 00). Appellant did not do so. Thus, his notice of appeal
was not ti m ely to in voke app ellate ju risdicti on to revi ew the or iginal proceedi ngs. Id . An untimelynotice of appeal will not invokethe juris diction of the cou rt of appe als. See White v. State , 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) . If an appeal is not timely perfected,
a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to add ress the merits of the appeal, and can take no actio n other th an to dis miss the a ppeal. See id .; Slaton v . State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Cri m.App. 19 98). Because app ellant di d not invoke our jurisdiction to consider matters relating to his original deferred adjudication procee ding, we must dismiss the appeal as to any

such pos sible is sues. See White , 61 S.W.3 d at 428; Vidaurri , 49 S.W.3d at 884-85. As to those matters unrelated to his original deferred adjudication proceeding, the record do es not su pport any arguabl y meritori ous error which wa s harmful to appel lant. The appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdi ction as to any iss ues relating t o appellant’s origina l deferre d adjudi cation p roceedin gs. The judgm ents of th e trial court are affirmed as to any issues unrelated to the original deferred adjudication proceedings. Appella te counse l’s motio ns to wit hdraw aregranted.
Phil Johnson Chief Justice Do not pu blish.