Case Name: Denise Rita SIPPLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2000-11-08
Citations: 36 S.W.3d 592
Docket Number: No. 10-00-233-CR
Parties: Denise Rita SIPPLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: Before Chief J. DAVTS, VANCE and GRAY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 36
Pages: 592–597

Head Matter:
Denise Rita SIPPLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 10-00-233-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.
Nov. 8, 2000.
Rehearing Overruled Jan. 10, 2001.
W. Troy McKinney, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Harris County Dist. Atty., Houston, for appellee.
Before Chief J. DAVTS, VANCE and GRAY, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
GRAY, Justice.
Denise Rita Sipple pled guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to driving while intoxicated. She was placed on community supervision for one year. The next day, Sipple filed a general notice of appeal. We notified Sipple by letter that her notice of appeal did not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3). See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(b)(3). We offered her an opportunity to amend the notice of appeal. Sipple responded with an amended notice of appeal which she filed with the district clerk. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION
Where a defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere with the benefit of a plea bargain agreement and the punishment assessed does not exceed the agreed punishment, a defendant's notice of appeal must comply with the extra-notice requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex.R.App. 25.2(b)(3). In this situation, a general notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court of appeals. Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (both construing former appellate rule 40(b)(1)).
We have construed Rule 25.2(b)(3) in the same manner; that is, compliance with the rule is jurisdictional. See Tressler v. State, 986 S.W.2d 381 (TexApp.—Waco 1999, no pet.). Other courts of appeals have also accepted this construction. See Robinson v. State, 24 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, no pet.); Villanueva v. State, 977 S.W.2d 693 (TexApp.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). Thus, if a notice of appeal does not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3), we do not have jurisdiction over the appeal. Tressler, 986 S.W.2d at 382. So well established is the jurisdictional nature of the requirement of Rule 25.2(b)(3) that we ceased publishing cases dismissed for failure to comply with the rule. See e.g. Anderson v. State, No. 10-99-00192-CR (TexApp.—Waco August 2, 2000)(not designated for publication); Steffy v. State, No. 10-98-00-265-CR (Tex. App.—Waco April 21,1999)(not designated for publication).
MERITS OF THE CASE
Defendants have frequently attempted to bypass the specific extra-notice requirements by utilizing another rule to give the courts jurisdiction where it had not otherwise been properly invoked. Just as many times, the Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that a court of appeals cannot use another rule to create jurisdiction where none exists. Thus, the Court of Criminal Appeals has made it clear that the courts of appeals cannot use other rules such as the new Rule 2, former Rule 2(b) or former Rule 83 to consider the merits of an appeal where the notice of appeal was untimely. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex.Crim.App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). The Court has also held that the courts of appeals cannot use former Rule 83 to permit an out of time amendment of a notice of appeal. Jones v. State, 796 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Crim.App.1990).
In 1997, a provision was added to the new rules of appellate procedure that allows for amendments of a notice of appeal. Rule 25 .2(d) provides:
An amended notice of appeal correcting a defect or omission in an earlier filed notice may be filed in the appellate court at any time before the appellant's brief is filed. The amended notice is subject to being struck for cause on the motion of any party affected by the amended notice. After the appellant's brief is filed, the notice may be amended only on leave of the appellate court and on such terms as the court may prescribe.
Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(d). We attempted to craft a procedure under this rule to allow a defendant to amend an otherwise defective notice of appeal if the defect was one that could be cured. See Tressler, 986 S.W.2d at 382. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has recently construed this provision and reaffirmed that prior case law prevents a court of appeals from using another appellate rule to create jurisdiction where none existed. State u. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 413 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). The Court stated that it does not matter which rule a court of appeals tries to use, former rules 2(b) or 83 or the current rule 25.2(d); the court cannot create jurisdiction without a proper notice of appeal. Id. "The point is that, once jurisdiction is lost, the court of appeals lacks the power to invoke any rule to thereafter obtain jurisdiction." Id. Although the Riewe appeal involved the State's compliance with its own extra-notice requirements, it appears that the Court wanted to settle the entire issue by stating, "any amendments made pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) cannot be jurisdictional amendments." Id. at 413-414. The Court has merely re-affirmed the method of invoking the jurisdiction of appellate courts in plea bargained cases; it has not abridged, modified, or enlarged a substantive right of the defendant. See eg. Villanueva, 977 S.W.2d at 696, n. 7. Thus, the portion of Tressler discussing the procedure to allow an amendment of a notice of appeal has been disapproved and will no longer be followed.
Conclusion
Sipple's general notice of appeal did not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3). Even though Sipple filed an amended notice of appeal after a letter from this Court, the time for perfecting his appeal has elapsed and this jurisdictional defect could not be corrected. See Riewe, 13 S.W.3d at 413-14. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.
Justice VANCE dissenting.