### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-01-00306-CR

Otis Der rick Taplin, Appellant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT NO. 51,432, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appe llantOt is Derrick Tapl in ple aded gui lty

to possessi

ng m ore t han f our g ram s of
co caine wi

th i nten t to deli ver. SeeTe x . H ea

l th & Saf ety Code An

n. § 481.112(a), (d) (West Supp. 2001)
. The district cour t asse ssed punishm en t at impr iso nme nt fo rt hir t y yea r s. Ap pe llant ’s o nly po intof error is that the court should hav e granted hi s request to wi

th dr aw th e g ui l ty pl ea . Th e S tate urges t hat we d o no t have jur isdict ion t o c ons ider t his co nt ent ion. We co nclude t hat we d o ha ve j urisd i cti on and that t he dist rict co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion by re fusing t o p er mit ap pellant to wit hdr aw his p lea. The re for e, we w ill affirm the c onvict ion. Jurisdiction The Stat e argues that appell ant’s gen eral n ot ic e of appeal

does not inv

oke this Cour t’s j urisd i cti on under the terms of

Texas Rul

e of Appe ll

ate Pro cedure 25.2(b )(3). Under thi s rul e, a defend ant who ple ads guilty to a fel ony h as a l im ited right to appeal

if “t he pu nish men t as se ss ed did2

not exce ed t he pu

n i sh men t re com men de d b y th e p ros ecutor

an d agr ee d to by the d efenda nt .” Te x. R. App. P. 25. 2( b)( 3) . I f the not ice o f app eal in suc h a ca se d oe s no t st at e t hat t he ap pe al fa lls w it hin
one of thr ee per mi

tt ed cat ego ries, it do es not inv oke the ap pellate cou rt ’s j uri sdi cti on. Whitt

v. State , 45 S. W. 3d 27 4, 27 5 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in 200 1, no pet .) ; see also Cooper v. State , 45 S.W.3d 77, 79 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2001 ) (rule 25.2 (b) l i m i ts every appe al i n pl ea b argai n, f elony cas e). The clerk’s record co ntains a “ di sc l osu re of plea r eco mmendat ion” r ecit ing t hat “no ple a b ar ga inagree

men t has be en reache d be

tween the D ef endan t and the State .” Th e rec ord ot her wise r eflect s, ho weve r, t hat t he St at e ag re ed t o a bando n t hre e indict ment p ar agr aphs alleging p revious f

el ony con vi cti ons f or en ha nc em en t of pun i sh men t an d to pe rm i t ap pe l l an t to en ter a n “op en” plea t o t he unenha nced first -d egr ee felo ny. Co nsider ingthe record as a whole, we b el ie ve that there wasa pl ea b argai n, b ut that i t di d not i nv oke rul e 25.2 (b)(3 ). Ru le 25.2(b)(3) does

not li m i t the ri ght to appe al

wh enev er the

re i s a b argai n ed gui l ty ple a, bu t onl y when “ the pun i sh men t as se ss ed doe s n ot exce ed t he punishment re co mmended by t he pros ecutor

and a gr eed t o by t he de fendant .” In t his cau se, t he pa rt ies did no t ag re e to a s pe cific punishment recomm

endati on or even to a punis hm ent “cap” be l ow whi ch the cour t co uld exerci se it s di scre tion i n a sse ssi ng p uni sh men t. See Del

atorre v. State , 957 S.W .2 d 145, 1 48-4 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us t in

1997, pet. r ef’ d). Even i f the State’s agreem e nt t o a bando n t he enha ncement par agr aphs is construed as a pun i sh men t re com men da ti on , the a

gr eemen t wa s rel ev an t onl y to appellant’s minimum punishment whi le rule 25.2(b)(3) cl

early contempl ates an agr eement lim

iting t he defendant’s maximum pu

n i sh men t. H ad th e S tate proved the enh

ancem ent alle gations, the m

in im um punishment for thi s off

ense woul

d have i ncreased f

rom f iv e to t wenty-fi

ve y ears in priso n but t he3

ma xi mum possi bl e pun i sh men t woul d ha

ve rem ai ne d the sam e. Compare Tex . Pen . Code A nn . § 12.32(a) (We st 1994 ) with id . § 12 .42 (d) (W es t S upp. 20 01). Because there was n o agreed punishment rec om

men da ti on w i thi n th e m ea ni ng of rul e 2 5.2 (b )(3 ), a

ppe l l an t’s ge ne ral noti ceof app eal wa s su ffi

cient t o invo ke o ur jurisd ictio n. Withdrawal of guilty plea

A def en da nt may w it hd r aw his g uilt y ple a a s a mat t er o f r igh t be fo r e ju dg m en t i s pronounced or t he case

is taken under adv

is em ent by the trial court. Jacks on v. State , 590 S.W.2d 514, 515 (T ex. Cri

m . A pp. 197 9). A f

ter j udg men t ori f the ca se i s u nd er a dv i semen t, wi thd raw al of t he gui l ty p l ea i s wi

thi n the soun

d di scre tion of the court. Id . In this

ca us e, ap pe lla nt en t er ed his gu ilt y plea o n Febr uar y 26, 200 1. The co ur t acc ept ed t he plea , o rd er ed a pr ese nt ence re po rt , a nd reset the c aus e f

or apun i sh

m ent hea ri ng. That hearing was held on April 30. During t he St ate ’s clos ingargumen

t, appellant asked to withdraw hi s pl ea. Un

de r th e c i rcu m sta nc es , th e w i

thd raw al of appellant’s ple a was discr et ionar y with t he court. DeVar y v. State , 61 5 S
. W. 2d 73 9, 74 0 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1981 ). Appe llantcl ai med th at h e p l eade d g

ui l ty with the un

derstandi ng that he was a ccused of mer ely po sses sing co caine, ra t her t han po sses sing i t wi th i nten t to deli ver. The reporter’ s rec ord f rom the F eb ruary

26 proce edi

ng c ontradi

cts thi s as serti on. Be f ore app ellant pl eade d gui

l ty, th e court tol d him that he wa s ac cus ed o f po sses sing co caine w ith int ent t o d eliver and advise d him of t he correct range of pun

is hm ent. Appe l l an

t sta te d that he understood. Giv en thi s record, t he di strict court did n

ot abuse i ts discreti on by

refusi ng appel la nt’s request to withdraw hi s gui lty ple a.4 The poin t o f error is

overruled an

d the judgm

ent of convi

ction i s af fi rmed.

__________________________________________ Mack Ki dd, Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye ak el

an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: Novem

ber 15, 2001 Publish