1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 2 ... T h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s c e rt if ic a t io n o fB r o w n ’s rig h tt o a p p e a l s t a t e s t h a tt h is “i s a pl ea- bar gai n case, and t he def endan thas N O r i ght ofappeal . ”



## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08-412- CR DAN I E LK E I T H B R OW N AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 4OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e l l a n t D a n i e l K e i th B ro w n a tte m p ts to a p p e a l h i s c o n v i c ti o n fo r i n j u ry t o a ch i l d w i t h i nt entt o c aus e b odi l y i nj ur y. I n a cc or dan ce w i t h a pl ea ba r gai n, th e tr i a l co u rtse n ten c e d B row n to tw o y e a rs’ de ferred ad j u d i c a ti o n co m m u n i ty su pervi si on. 2Th e t r i a l c ou rti m p o s e d Br ow n’ s s e nt e nc e o n Se pt e m be r29,3 ... B r o w n f ile d a p r o s e n o t ic e o fa p p e a l. 2 20 08 . Br ow n di d not f i l e a m ot i on f or n e w tr ial , so hi s not i ce ofappeal w as du e Oct ob e r 29, 2008, b utw a s f i l e d Nov e m be r10, 2008 . 3 S ee Tex. R. A pp. P. 26. 2( a) ( r equ i r i ng t hatnot i ceofap pea l be f i l ed w i t hi n t hi rt y da ysaft ert he d a ys e n t e n c e is im p o s e d o rw it h in n in e t yd a y s a f t e rt h e d a y s e n t e n c e is i m p o s e d i f th e d e fe n d a n t fi l e s a ti m e l ym o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l ). O n Novem ber14, 2008 , w e not i f i ed Br ow n’ s t r i al cou ns el oft he app ar ent unt i m el i nes s oft he not i ce ofap pea l an d s t at ed t hatw e w ou l d di sm i sst he app ea l unl es s w e re c e i v e d a r es pons e s how i ng gr oundsf orco nt i nui ng t he a p p e a l . S ee Tex. R. A pp. P. 44. 3. Br ow n’ s cou ns el r es ponde d w i t h a “ M ot i on t o W i t hd r a w a s Cou ns e l . ” Th e m ot i on d i d no t a dd r e s s ou r Nov e m be r14, 2008 l e tte r. A n o t i ce of ap pe al t ha t co m pl i es w i t h t he r eq ui r em en t s of r ul e 2 6 is e s s e n t i a l t o v e s t th i s c o u rt w i th j u ri s d i c ti o n . S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 2 6 .2 (a ); Sl a to nv. S tate , 98 1 S . W . 2d 2 0 8 , 2 10 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 98 ) . The T exas C ourtofC r i m i nal A ppeal s has expr essl y hel d t hat , w i t hou ta t i m el y f i l ed noti ce ofappeal orm ot i on f or ext ensi on of t i m e, w e cannot exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on ov er a n a p p e a l . S e eO l

ivo v. S tate , 9 1 8 S .W .2 d 5 1 9 , 5 2 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ); s e eal s o Sl aton , 9 8 1 S .W .2 d a t2 1 0 . B e c a u s e B r o w n d id n o tt im e lyf ile h is3

n o ti c e o f a p p e a l , w e d o n o t h a v e j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r th i s a p p e a l . See Ol ivo , 918 S. W . 2d a t522. M or eov er , i ft he j ur i sd i ct i on ofa cou rt of app ea l s i s not pr ope r l y i nvok ed, th e p o w e r o f th e a p p e l l a te c o u rt to a c t i s a s a b s e n t a s i f i t d i d n o t e x i s t. W h ite v. S tate , 6 1 S . W . 3 d 4 2 4 , 4 2 8 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e we h a v e n o j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r th i s a p p e a l , w e d o n o t c o n s i d e r B ro w n ’s c o u n s e l ’s “M ot i on t o W i t hdr aw as Co u n sel . ” S e eid .; Ja ckso nv. S tate , No. 07- 02- 002 83- C R, 2004 W L 6 6 7 7 3, at*2 ( Tex. A pp. — A m ar i l l o Ja n. 15, 2004 , no pet . ) ( m em . op. , not des i gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) . Accor di ngl y, w e d i sm i sst he a p p e a l fo r w a n t o f j u ri s d i c ti o n . S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 3 .2 (f).

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: HO LM A N , G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Dec e m be r23, 2008