### Affirmed and Opinion FiledJuly 2, 1998

In The 

## (Hour! ofAppeals Jtfty Bxstrxci of Okxas at lallas No. 05-96-01989-CR 

### PATRICK DEON HOWARD, Appellant V. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Number Four ofDallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F96-17436-MK OPINION PER CURIAM 

### Before Justices Kinkeade, Whittington, and James 

### Patrick Deon Howard was charged by indictment with the attempted capital murder 

### ofAaron E. Barnes, a Cedar Hill police officer. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense in exchange for a recommendation by the prosecutor that appellant be sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment and a $500.00 fine and that his sentence run concurrently with his sentence in another case. The trial judge accepted appellant's plea of guilty and followed the plea agreement. The judgment was entered on November 14, 1996, 

# ^•dUI L 0 6 m $

### and contains a deadly weapon finding. 

### Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The briefmeets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 

### U.S. 738 (1967). The briefpresents a professional evaluation ofthe 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, but appellant did not file
a pro se response. 

### The State maintains that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal under rule 40(b)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1) (former 

### rules).1 Rule 40(b)(1) requires that a defendant, appealing from a plea-bargained conviction, file a notice of appeal stating that the trial court granted permission to appeal or that the appellant raised the matters appealed by written motion, which was ruled on by the trial court before trial. If appellant's notice of appeal does not meet the requirements of rule 40(b)(1), then it is a general notice of appeal. A general notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction on a court of appeals to consider nonjurisdictional defects or errors 

### occurring before or after the entry of a negotiated plea. Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736
1 Effective September1,1997, when adefendant enters hispleaof guilty ornolo contendere underarticle 1.15of the Texas Code of CriminalProcedure andthepunishment assessed by the trial courtdoesnot exceedthepunishment recommended by the prosecutor andagreed to by the defendant, the notice ofappeal must specify that: (A) the appeal is for ajurisdictional defect; B) the substance of the appeal was raised by writtenmotion andruled on beforetrial; or C) the trialcourtgranted permission toappeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Weapply therevised rules to allpendingproceedings unless ourapplying therevised rules in aparticular proceeding would not befeasible orwould work injustice, inwhich case wemay apply theformer rules. Here, appellantfiled hisnotice ofappeal before theeffective date of thenew rules ofappellate procedure. Because itwould notto be feasible to requireappellant to comply with the new rule, we applyformer rule 40(b)(1).

-2-

### (Tex. Crim. App.), cert, denied, 114 S. Ct. 2684 (1994); Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). 

### In the this case, appellant filed an amended request for permission to appeal on 

### December 9, 1996, and the request contains on order signed by the trial court granting appellant permission to appeal. Although appellant subsequently filed two timely notices 

### of appeal, neither notice of appeal states that appellant was given permission to appeal. Nevertheless, because the order granting permission to appeal is contained in the transcript, appellant's notices of appeal substantially comply with rule 40(b)(1), and this Court has jurisdiction over this case. See Riley v. State, 825 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992);
see also Davis, 870 S.W.2d at 47. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.We affirm the trial court's judgment. PER CURIAM Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47 961989F.U05

-3-

## (Eaurt ofAppeals 

## JTiftly jBtstrtrt of Qkxas at Sallas JUDGMENT PATRICK DEON HOWARD, Appellant No. 05-96-01989-CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

### Appeal from the Criminal District Court Number Four of Dallas County, Texas. 

### (Tr.Ct.No. F96-17436-MK). Opinion delivered per curiam by Justices Kinkeade, Whittington, and James.


### Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered July 2, 1998.

IK WHITTINGTO JUSTICE



### UL 0 6 J998