NO. 07- 01-01 26-CR NO. 07- 01-01 27-CR IN THE COURT O F APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JUNE 28, 2002

____________

____________

______ BRANDY DEEVON TUCKER, APPEL LANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

____________

____________

_________ FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COUR T OF PO TTER C OUNT Y; NOS. 38 ,0 78-A & 3 8, 079 -A; HONORA BLE DAVI D GLE ASON, JUD GE

____________

____________

_______ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. Pursuant

to plea b argain agreements, appell ant Brandy DeeVon Tucker was convi cted of possessi on of

a control led subs tance on Sep tember 4, 1997, and puni shment was assesse d atsix years conf inem ent in cause number 38,0 78-A, and six years confi nement and a $1,500 fine in caus e number 38,079-A. The sente nces were s uspended and appell ant wasplaced on comm unitysup ervi sion for six years. Upon the State’s motion to revoke for v iola tions of the conditi ons of co m m unity su pervisio n, app ellant’s term of comm unity supervi sion was extende d1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 

### 2 bytwo years and t he condi tions theretow ere ame nded. On Apri l 17, 2000, upon heari ng evide nce that ap pell ant had ag ain v iola ted the c onditi ons of comm unity supervi sion, the tri al courtsigned revocat ion or de rs and i mposed the ori ginal punishment for each offense. Appell antfile d ge nera l notices of app eal fro m both ju dgm ents. In pres enting this app eal, counsel has fil ed an Anders 1 brief in suppo rt of a motion to wi thdraw . Based upon t he ratio nale expresse d herei n, the a ppeal i s dismissed for want of juri sdicti on. In support of his motion to wi thdraw , counsel has cert ified thathe has diligently revi ewed the record and, i n his op inio n, the r ecord refl ects no rever sibl e error

or grounds u pon whi ch an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. Cali fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1 8 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v . State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.- -San Antoni o 1984, no pet.). Thus, he conclud es the appeal is fri volou s and wi thout merit . In co mpliance wi th High v. State, 5 73 S.W .2d 807, 813 (Te x.Cr.App. 1 978), couns el has candidly discus sed why, under the control ling authori ties, there i s no error in the court's jud gment. Counsel h as alsoshown thathe sent acopy of

the bri ef to appel lant, and informed appel lant t hat, i n counsel 's vi ew, t he appeal is w ithout

merit. In addit ion, counsel has demonstrated that henotifi ed appel lant of her right to rev iew

the reco rd and fi le a pro sebrief if she de sired to do so. Appell ant di d notfile a pro se bri ef nor

did the State fa vor us wi th a b rie f. Appellate juri sdicti on is i nvoked by fili ng a ti mely and prope r notice of app eal. See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W 3d 408, 410 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000). To perfect an appeal from a judgment that

### 3

was rendere d on a defen dant’s guil ty pl ea and in which the puni shment assessed di d not exceed the puni shment recomm en ded by t he p rosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, a noticeof appeal must (a) specify that the appeal i s for a jurisdicti onal defect; ( b) speci fy that the substance of the appe al was rai sed bywri tten motion a nd rul ed on before tri al; or (c) state thatthe trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b) (3); see alsoW hite v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428-29 ( Tex.Cr.App. 2001) ( holdi ng that t he noti ce requi rements set forth in Rul e 25.2(b )(3) sh ould be interpreted a ccordin g to thei r plai n meaning and that fai ling to meet the requireme nts fails to i nvoke the jurisdict ion of an appellate court); see also Vidaurri v. State, 4 9 S.W .3d 880, 884 (Tex. Cr.App. 200 1) (hold ing that t he noti ce of appeal limitat ions of Rule 25.2(b)(3) apply to an appeal from a convict ion re ndered on a guil ty pl ea wi th agree d punishment). App ellant’s notices of appeal do not contai n any of the requirements set forth i n Rule 25.2(b) (3) necessary

to in voke thi s Court’ s juri sdicti on over the co nvi ctions. Thus, our juris dicti on has not b een invoked and t he appeal s must be dismissed. Acco rdingly, t he app eals are dismissed for

want of juri sdicti on and we are wi thout j urisdi ction to rul e on counsel ’s motion to withdr aw.
Don H. Re avis Justi ce Do not publish.