NO. 07-01-0139 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L B MARC H 8, 2002

______________________________ SANTOS JOEL ARZOLA, APP ELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 180 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY; NO. 843464; HON ORABLE DOUG SH AVER , JUDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and QUINN and JOHNSON, JJ. Appellant Santos Joe l Ar zolaapp ealshis con viction for agg rav ate d se xu al as sau lt of a ch ild and his pun ishm ent of confinem ent for 10 years . We dismiss for want o f jurisdiction. Appellant wascharged by indictm ent with the felony offense of aggravated sexua l ass ault of a child less than 14 years of age . Pursuant to aplea agreement with the State,2

appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty. The trial court accepted the plea of guilty, found appellant guilty, foll owed the p lea agreement an d sentenced appellant to 10 years confinem ent in t he Institutional Division of the Texas Departm ent of Crim inal Justice. No m otion for new trial was f iled. Appellant, acting pro se , timely filed a general notice of appeal. Appella nt’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a Brief in Suppo rt there of. In support of the mo tion, counsel has certified that, in com pliance with And ers v. Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 73 8, 744-45, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967), the record has been d il igently reviewed. In the opinion of counsel this court’s appellate jurisdiction has not been invoked over the appe al. Further, counsel has concluded that even if our appellate jurisdiction has been invoked, the record reflects noreversible error or grounds upon w hich a non-frivolous appeal can arguably be predicated. Ev en t hou gh coun sel h as s et o ut t he b asisfor her con clus ion t hat

this court does nothave jurisdicti on over the appea l, her bri ef neverthel ess dem onstrates a consc ientious review of the entire rec ord and ana lys is of thelega l iss uesinvo lved in a pot ent ial ap pea l, including appellant’s written w aiver of his right of appeal. After referencing and analyzing the rec ord and theapp licab le law , co uns el ha s dis cus sed w hy, und er t he cont rolli n g authori ties, there is no rev ers ible error in the trial court’s judgm ent. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.C rim.App. 1978). Counsel has attac hed exhibits sho wing that a copy of the Anders

brief and Motion to Withdraw have been forwarded to appellant, and thatcou nse l hasapp rop riat ely a dvis ed a ppe llant of h is rig ht to re view

therec ord and file3

a response to counsel ’s mo tion and brief. Appellant has notfiled a response to counsel ’s mot ion and brief. We have m ade an independent exam ination of the record to determ ine whether there are any

arg uab le grounds m eriting appeal. See Pe nso n v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988 ); Stafford v. S tate , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim .App. 1991). In doing so, we have found tha t appell ant’s notice of appe al from his pleabargained conviction is a general notice of appeal and does not u rge any of the three bases for appeal set out in T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(b)(3). To perfect appeal from ajudgm ent which w as rendered on the defendant’s plea of guilty or nolo contende re under C ode of C rimina l Proced ure article 1.15, and in which the punishment

assessed did not ex

ceed the punishm ent recom mende d by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant , the notice of appeal mus t (a) specify that t he appea l is for a jurisdictional defect; (b) speci fy that the su bstanc e of the appeal wa s raised by written mot ion and ruled on before trial; or (c) state that the trial court granted per mission to app eal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(b)(3); Young v. S tate , 8 S.W.3d 656, 666-67 (Tex.Crim .App. 2000). If the form of a notice of appeal does not invoke the j urisdiction of a court of appeals, the appellate court does no t have j urisdiction to address the appeal and can only dismiss the appeal. See Sta te v. R ie we , 13 S.W.3d 408, 411-12 (Tex.C rim.App. 2000).4

We agree with co uns el’s conclusion that our appellate jurisdiction has not been invoked by appell ant’s general notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dism issed for lack o f jurisdiction. See id . Be ca us e we ha ve no jur is di ct io n o ve r t he ap pe al exc ept t o dism iss it , we cannot and do not consider appellate counsel’s M otion to W ithdraw.

Phil Johnson Justice Do not publish.