NO. 07-01-0124-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JANUARY

7, 2002

______________________________ GEORGE ALVIN FINCHER, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 251 ST DISTRIC T COURT O F RANDALL COUNTY; NO. 9,520-C; HONORABLE PATR ICK A. PIRTLE, J UDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS an d JOHNSON, JJ. Appellant

George Al vin Finc her seeks to ap peal a judgment of the 251 st District Courtconvicting him of the felony offense of sex ual assault after his plea of gui lty. Finding we have no jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss.
In an indictment filed Novemb er 1 6, 199 5, appellant w as charged w ith a sexual assault alleged to have occ urred December 30, 1994. Counsel was appointed to r epresent2

appellant

and the case was called for t rial on Mar ch 5, 2001. Before a ny other proceedings, the State soug ht to amend the indictment b y chang ing t he name of the v icti m. Defense counsel affirmati vel y repres ented the defense had no obj ection to the amendmen t. The prosecution proceeded to cl arify the defense w aiver appl ied, e ve n though the amendme nt occurred on the day of tri al. The defense repeated its wai ver of any objecti on to the amendment. Appellant

proceeded to ple ad guilty pursuant to a pl ea agreement. The trial court questioned appellant

concerning his understand ing of his rig hts and the effect of his pl ea. The court speci fically addr essed the amendment to t he in dictme nt askin g if the ch ange was “acceptable to you?” Appel lant personall y repli ed, “Oh qui te, yes, s ir.” The trial court found appellant guilty and imposed a senten ce of ten years confinement in conformit y wi th the plea agreement. After sen tence was imposed, appellant waived his right toappeal in writing. Neverth eless, he filed a general no tice of appeal on April 1, 2001. Appellant now presents tw

o issues for

our revi ew. They both concern the trial cour t’s authorit

y to allow an amendment to the indi ctment on the day of trial.
Althou gh not raised by the parties, it is our d uty to deter mine our juri sdicti on ove r this appeal. Because appellan t’s convi ction wasfrom an agreed pl ea and the punishment assessed did not exceed that recommended by the prosecutor , the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2 (b) are applicable. That rule provides a notice of appeal in this cir cumstance must (a ) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdic tional defect; (b)spec ify the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion ruled on before trial; or (c) state3

the trial cour

t granted permission to appeal . Tex. R. A pp. P. 25.2(b ). Appellant filed a general notice of appeal which did notmeet the requi rements of Rule 25.2 (b). Appell ant presents no ar

gument why

this rule is not applicable.
Because appellant has not satisfied the mandatory req uirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2 (b), we must dismiss t his appeal for w ant of jurisdic

tion. See Cooper v. Stat

e , 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Moreover, contrary to appellant’s contention, any

error in permitti ng an amendment on theday of trial is subject to waiver. State v. Murk , 815 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex.Cri m.Ap p. 1991). We dismiss this a ppeal for want of juri sdiction.
Per Curiam Do not publish

.