### Dismissed, Order issued October^?6/, 1996 

# S<\(h9

In The UX'1" ^;.. ,?L: (Unttrt ofAppeals c C j 

## Jiftl); Itsirtrt of Wexaz at lallas l £7—
No. 05-92-00030-CR NO. 05-92-00031-CR NO. 05-92-00032-CR BRANDON DEMETRIUS NASH, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
OPINION AND ORDER
Before Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Maloney and Hankinson Brandon Demetrius Nash appeals his convictions for possession of less than twentyeight grams ofcocaine, aggravated assault, and aggravated robbery. Ineach case, appellant pleaded guilty as part ofaplea bargain agreement and was placed on deferred adjudication probation for ten years and fined $750. Subsequently, the State filed amotion to adjudicate 

### guilt in each case. The trial courtrevoked appellant's probation and adjudicated him guilty. In the drug offense, punishment was assessed atten years in prison and a$750 fine; in the 

### remaining two cases, punishment was assessed atfive years in prison and fines of$300 and

## %4{^ fO
$750. Appellant filed notices of appeal in each case. In his briefs, appellant concedes this Court has no jurisdiction pursuant to rule 40(b)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 40(b)(1) provides: [I]f the judgment was rendered upon [an appellant's] plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to Article 1.15, Code of Criminal Procedure, and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant and his attorney, in order to prosecute an appeal for a nonjurisdictional defect or error thatoccurred prior to entry of the plea the notice shall state that the trial court granted permission to appeal orshall specify thatthose matters were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1). Ageneral notice ofappeal does notconferjurisdiction upon this Court to consider nonjurisdictional issues. Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex. Crim. 

### App.), cert, denied, 114. S. Ct. 2684 (1994). Rule 40(b)(1) applies to cases in which 

### appellant is placed on deferred adjudication probation pursuant to aplea agreement and the probationis subsequentlyrevoked and appellant adjudicated guilty. Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The fact that the term ofconfinement 

### imposedfollowing adjudication ofguiltwas notrecommendedby the State does not amount toarefusal ofthe trial courttoimplement the pleabargain agreement. Watson, 924 S.W.2d

at 714.

### In these cases, appellant entered his original pleas pursuant to negotiated plea 

### bargains. The punishment assessed by the trial court did not exceed that agreed to by 

### appellant and her attorney and recommended by the State. Further, appellant filed only

-2-

## Ml* general notices of appeal. According to appellant's brieffiled by retained counsel, Ross Teter, appellantwas admonishedinwriting andbythe Courtin substantial compliancewith article 26.13 of the code of criminal procedure. Additionally, the brief asserts that the 

### record does not reflect that the plea was involuntary. Appellant has brought no points of 

## error raisingjurisdictional defects. Because appellant filed general notices ofappeal, this Court does not have jurisdiction over these appeals. 

### Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeals for lack ofjurisdiction.

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 90 <s). 9^4^^ /sJZsiaA^ DEBORAH G. HANKINSON JUSTICE

-3- j