NO. 07-01-0007 -CR NO. 07-01-0008 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L A DECEM BER 18, 2001

______________________________ LEW IS DENNIS RICHAR DSON, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 47 TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUN TY; NO. 40,170-A; 40 ,171-A; HONO RABLE DAVID GLEAS ON, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
In ap pella te caus e No . 07 -01 -00 07- CR app ellan t Lew is D enn is R icha rds on a ppe als from his adjudication of guilt for aggravated assault on a public servant, the revocation of his comm unity super vision , and sentence of incarcer ation for 30 years. In appel late cause No. 07-01-0008-CR appellantapp ealsfro m his adj udicatio n of guilt for agg rav ate d as sau lt with a dea dly w eapon, the revocation of his com munity s upervision, and sentence of incarceration for 15 years. We dismiss for lack of j urisdiction.2

On August 16, 1999, appellant pled guilty in cause No. 40,170-A in the 47 th District Court of Potter County

(“the trial court”) to the charge of aggravated a ssault on a pu blic servant. Honoring a plea bargain between the State and appellant, the trial court deferred adjudicating appellant guilty and placed him on com munity s upervision for ten years. On August 16, 199 9, a ppe llant alsopled guilt

y in cause No. 40,171-A in the trial court to the charge of aggrav ated assault w ith a deadly weapon. Again honoring a plea bar gain between the State and ap pellant, the trial court deferred adjudicating appellant guilty and placed him on com munity s upervision for ten years. On March, 2, 2000, the St atefiled a M otio n toPr oce ed With A

dj udicatio n of

Guilt
on Original Charge in each of the causes. On M arch 8, 2000, an alias capias was issued in each ca use fo r the arrest of ap pell ant on the respecti ve motions to adjudicate. Each alias capias was executed and appellant was arrested on July 10, 2000.
The Stat e’s m otions toadj udicate w ere heard together on Decem ber 7, 2000. The trial court adjud icated appellant guilty as to each charge. Appellant wa s sentenced to incarceration in the Tex as Dep artm ent of C rimina l Justice-I nst itut io nal Division fo r 30 yea rs in cause No. 40,170-

A and for 15 years in cause N o. 40,171-A. On D ecem ber 29, 2000, appellant filed a general notice of appeal in each cause. On July 17, 2001, appellant filed
an Am ended Notice of

Appeal in each cause. In ea ch am ended notice he states that the appeal is for jurisdictional defect “as a result of the failure to issue capias or warrant for1 Further references to the Texas Rules of Appella te Procedure will be by reference to “TRAP_.” 3 arrest, as requir ed.” He j oint ly br iefe d an d j oint lypresents his appeals from the convictions and sentences. The issuespresented address each cause in the sam e m anner. Appellant asserts that the trial court lacked both jurisdiction and authority to proceed
on the State’s

mo tions to adjudicate and to revoke hi s com munity supervisi on because proper issuance and service of an alias capias or w arrant for his arrest was not effected
as to eac h m otion. TheStat e’s res ponse is threefo ld: (1) there cord do es n ot f act ually support appellant’s contentions; (2) j urisdiction of th e appellat e court has not been invoked, and theapp ealsshould be dism issed for lack of j urisdiction; and (3) t he trial cour t had jurisdiction to hear all the State’s m otions regardless of the is suance of capias or arrest warrant a s to the particular m otion in question.
There is no constituti onal ri ght to appel late revi ew of criminal convict ions. Perez
v. State , 938 S.W.2d 761, 762 (Tex .App. --Aust in 1997, p et. ref ’d). The righ t toapp eal is conferred by the legislature, and a party m ay appeal only that which t h e legislature has authorized. Galitz v. State , 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex.Crim .App. 1981) . In a crim inal case, appeal is perfected by tim ely filing a notice of appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25. 2(a). 1 A defective attem pt to perfect appeal froma conviction fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 5 19, 52 3 (Tex.Crim .App. 1996). The appellate court then has no jurisd ictio n over the appeal and must dismiss the ma tter. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim .App. 1998).4

The notice of appeal m ust be f iled w ithin 30 d aysafter t he d ay s ent enc e is imposed
or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order, unless a timely m otion for new trial is filed. TRAP 26.2 (a). The notice of appeal mu st be in writing and m ust contain the
necess aryjurisdictional allegations. See TRAP 25.2(b); Sta te v. R ie we , 13 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex.Cri m.App. 2000) . An untim ely notice of appea l or a notice of appeal which does not confor m to j urisdi ctional require ments or contain jurisdi ctional assertions wil l not in voke the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. See id . at

411 , 41 3-1 4. I f an app eal is not tim ely perfected , a c our

t of app ealscan take noact ion o the r th an to dis m iss theapp eal. Se e Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210. TRAP 25.2(d) doe s not perm it an appellate court to grant a mot ion to amend the notice of appeal outside the tim e limits to perfect appeal if the
am endm ents sought to be made to the notice of a ppeal ar e jurisdicti onal amendments. See Ri ewe , 13 S.W.3d at 413-14. For, once jurisdiction is lost, an appell ate court la cks the power to invoke any rule to thereafter obtain j urisdiction. Id . at 413. The requirements of

TRAP 25.2(b)(3) apply to adefendant w ho plea bargains for deferred adjudication. See Vidaurri v. State , 49 S.W.3d 880, 883 (Tex.Crim .App. 2001) (application of TRA P 25.2 (b)(3) is tr iggered by nature of original plea bargain process, not whether defenda nt p led true or not tru e to allegat ions of m otion to re voke pr obation); Bro wn v. State , 943 S.W .2d 35, 41 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1997) (const ruing former TRAP 40(b)(1))

. In the absence of som e express agreemen t between the prosecutor and the defendant

limiting the punish ment to be assessed in the event of a subsequent adjudication of defendant, w hen t h e pr ose cutor r

eco m m end s de fer red adj udicatio n in5

exchangefor a de fendant ’s plea o f guilty or nolo conten dere and deferred adj udicatio n is granted, then the trial judge does not ex ceed the recom menda tion if, upon proceeding to
an adjudication of guilt, the j udge later assesses any punishm ent within the range allowed bylaw. W atson v. State , 924 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex.Crim .App. 1996); see Ditto v. State , 988 S.W.2d 236, 239-40 (Tex.Crim .App. 1999)

. In the m atters before us, appellant’s original general notices of appeal did not serve to i nvoke o ur jurisdiction. See Vidaurri , 49 S.W.3d at 883 and Ri ewe , 13 S.W.3d at 413-14. The am ended not icesw ere not tim ely to invoke our j urisdiction, and we m ay not allowame nd men t o f t he no ti ce s o f a pp ea l i f t he ame ndmen ts soug ht to bem ade are jurisdictional am endme nts and are outside the tim e for perfecting of appeal. See Ri ewe , 13 S.W .3 d a t 4 13 -1 4. Bec au se ou r ju ri sd ic ti on ha s no t b ee n i nv ok ed , we must dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210. Accordingly, we dism iss the appeals for lack of j urisdiction.

Phil Johnson Justice Do not publish.