1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 332- CR M I CH AE LS E AN VAN N AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 43RD DI STRI CT CO URT O F PARKERCO UN TY

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

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

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antM i cha elSean V ann att em pt s t o a ppe alhi s con vi ct i on f or eva di ng a r r es tw i t h a m ot orve hi cl e f orw hi ch he w as se nt enc ed t o t hi rt y- one yea r s’ co n fi nem enti n a j udgm entda t ed June10, 2008 . Vann t i m el y f i l ed a m ot i o n fo r new t r i alon J ul y 9, 2008 . Vann’ s not i ceofap pea l w asdue S ept em ber 8, 20 08 , but w as not f i l ed unti l S ept em ber 22 , 20 08 . Th e not i ce2

ofap pea l s t at ed t hatV ann w as app ea l i ng f r om “ t he j udgm entofco nvi ct i on a nd s e n te n c e .” O n S ept em ber 24 , 20 08 , w e sent V ann a l et t erst at i ng t hatt he courtw as concer ned t hat i t m ay not have j ur i sdi ct i on ov erhi s appeal because hi s not i ce o f a p p e a l w a sn o t ti m e l yfi l e d . S eeTex. R . A pp. P. 26 . 2. O url et t eral so st at ed t h a tt he t r i al court ’ s cert i f i cat i on st at ed t hatt hi s i s a pl ea- bar gai n case, t hat V a n n h a d n o ri g h t o f a p p e a l , a n d th a t h e h a d w a i v e d h i sri g h t o f a p p e a l . W e i ns t r uct ed V ann oran y pa rt y de si r i ng to c o n ti nuet he app ea l t o f i l e w i t h t he c o u rta re s p o n s e s h o w in g g r o u n d sf o rc o n t in u in g t h e a p p e a l. V ann r es ponde d by f i l i ng an am end ed not i ceofap pea l an d a doc um ent e n ti tl e d “ A p p e l l a n t’sR e s p o n s e S h o w i n g G ro u n d s fo r C o n ti n u i n g H i sA p p e a l .” V ann’ s re sponse ar gued t hathi s appeal w as t i m el y because hi s pr i orcounsel f i l ed a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw as att or ney of r ec or d and i ncl ude d th e fo l l ow i ng s t a t e m e n t , “ D e f e n d a n tw is h e st o p u r s u e a p p e lla t e re m e d ie s [, ] a n d itis n e c e ss a ry th a t an o th e r co u n se l b e ap p o i n ted w h o i s n o t i n co n fl i c t w i th D ef endan t . ” H ow ever , t he m ot i on w as neverf i l ed i n t hi s court , and such l a n g u a g e d o e sn o t c o n s ti tu te a s u fficie n t n o ti c e o f a p p e a l . S e e Ba ez v. S tate , 23 5 S . W . 3d 83 9, 84 1 ( Tex . A pp. — Tex ar kana 20 07 , pet . r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng t hat l ang uag e c ont ai ned i n m ot i on t o w i t hd ra w doe s notco ns t i t ut e a s uf f i ci ent n o ti c e o f a p p e a l u n d e r ru l e 2 5 .2 ). W e th e r e fo re l a c kj u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r V a n n ’s3

n o ti c e o f a p p e a l th a t w a sn o t ti m e l yfi l e d . S e eS ta tev. Ri e we , 13 S . W . 3d 408, 410 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2000 ) ( st at i ng t hatap pel l at e j ur i sd i ct i on i s i nvok ed by g i v i n g ti m e l ya n d p ro p e r n o ti c e o f a p p e a l ). M or eover , even i fV ann’ s not i ce of appeal had been t i m el y f i l ed, he had no r i ghtofap pea l f r om hi s pl ea ba r gai n. Al t hough V ann am end ed hi s not i ceof appeal t o st at e t hat he w as appeal i ng f r om t he t r i al court ’ s deni al ofhi s r equest f orpe r m i ss i on t o a ppe alt he j udgm entan d s ent enc e, w e f i nd no pr ovi si on gi vi ng u s j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r s u c h a n a p p e a l . T h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re a re c l e a r th a t i n a p l e a -b a rg a i n c a s e , a n a p p e l l a n t m a ya p p e a l o n l y“ th o s e m a tte rs t hat we r e r a i s e d b y wr i t t e n mo t i o n f i l e d a n d r u l e d o n b e f o r e t r i a l ” o r“af t er g e ttin g th e tri a l c o u rt’sp e rm i s s i o n to a p p e a l .” T e x . R . A p p . P . 2 5 .2 (a )(2 ). T h e r e isn o e x c e p t io n f o rt h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s re f u s a l t o g r a n tp e r m is s io n t o a p p e a l. S e eE s tradav. S tate , 1 4 9 S .W .3 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 2 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 20 04 , pet . r ef ’ d) . In t hi s case, t he t r i al courtcert i f i ed t hatt hi s “i s a pl eabar gai n c as e, an d th e d e fe n dan tha s N O r i ghtofap pea l ” and t hat“ t he def endan thas w ai ved t he r i ght ofappeal . ” Even if th e n o ti ce ofappeal had b e e n ti m e l y , w i th o u t a c e rt i fi c a ti o n fr o m the tr i a l co u rtrefl e c ti n g a ri g h t t o a p p e a l , w e w o u l d h a v e h a d to d i s m i s sth e a p p e a l . S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 2 5 .2 (d ).4

H a v i n g h e l d th a t th e n o ti c e o f a p p e a l i su n t i m e l y , w e d i s m i s sV a n n ’s app ea l f orl ac k o fj ur i sd i ct i on.

P E R CU R I AM P A N E L : W A L K E R , J .; C A Y C E , C .J .; a n d M C C O Y , J . DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r30, 2008