NO. 07-02-0050 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L C MARC H 8, 2002

______________________________ RAYNALDO ME DELLIN, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 181 ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUN TY; NO. 44,287-B; H ONORAB LE JOHN B OARD, JU DGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. Appellant Raynaldo Medellin appeals from his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. We dismiss for want of j urisdiction. Appellant hasfiled a “N otic e of Ap pea l a nd Reque st for Court’s P ermission to Ap pea l” from his judgm ent of conviction dated D ecem ber 10, 2 001, in C ause N o. 44,2 87-B in the 181 stDistrict Court of Potter County for delivery of a controlled substance. Neither a clerk’s record nor a reporter’srecord has been filed in connection with the appe al.1 A rule of appella te proce dure will be ref erred to a s “TRAP_” here aft er. 2 In his not ice of ap pea l, appellant asserts that his conviction was pursuant to a plea bar gain and that the punishm ent assessed by the trial court was in accordance w ith the plea bar gain . A ppe llant

doe s no t alle ge t hat

(1) his app eal is

bas ed o n a j uris dictiona l defect, (2) the substance of the appeal was raised by w ritten motion ruled on before trial or (3) thetria l cou rt g ran ted per m iss ion to ap pea l. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(b)(3) . He asserts only that he i s “requesti ng that the [tri al] co urt grant perm ission to Defendant to pursue h is appeal.” A threshold question i n any case is wheth er the court has j urisdiction over the pending controversy. See State v. Ro berts , 940 S.W.2d 655, 65 7 (Tex .Crim .App. 1996). Court s will addre ss the question of j urisdiction sua sponte; for, unless a court has jurisdiction over a m atter, its actions in the m atter are without v alidity. Id . at 657 n.2. Appellate j uris dict ion is invo ked by givin g tim ely and proper notice of

appeal. See State v. R ie we , 13 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex.Crim .App. 2000). To pe rf ec t a pp ea l fr om a judgm entwhich w

as rendered on the def endant’ s plea of guilty or nolo contende re under Code of Criminal Procedure art icle 1.15, and in which the punishm entassessed did not exceed the punishm ent recom mende d bythe prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal m ust (a) specify that the a ppeal is for a jurisdicti ona l defect; (b) specifythat the substance of the appeal was raised by written m otion and ruled on be fore tria l; or (c) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25 .2(b)(3); 1 W hite v. State , 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex.Crim .App. 2001) . Dism issal of a n3

issue or the entire m atter is appropriate unless the for m of t he n otic e of app eal is

proper to perfect appeal as to the issue or mat ter. Id
. Appella nt’s Notice of Appeal does not contain any of th e three al legations necess aryto invo ke our ap pellate jurisdiction over an appeal from h is conviction. See TRAP 25.2(b)(3); W hite , 61 S .W.3d at 428. A ccordingly, our jurisdiction has not been invoked and we d ismiss the appe al for want of j urisdiction.

Per Curiam Do not publish.