Court Opinion

ID: 9811626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:26:39.680683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:44.689900
License: Public Domain

OPINION
RONALD L. WALKER, Chief Justice.
Walter Wayne Sigford pleaded guilty to the felony offense of Manufacture of a Controlled Substance. Sigford and the State agreed to a punishment recommendation of fifteen (15) years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The record reflects that the trial court followed the punishment recommendation and assessed the fifteen (15) year term of incarceration. Appellant filed a general notice of appeal. Appellant later filed an amended notice of appeal adding his wish to appeal “the vol-untariness of his GUILTY plea.”
Neither notice of appeal complies with Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(b)(3) in that neither notice specifies that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect of the trial court, nor that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on prior to trial, nor that the trial court granted Sigford permission to appeal. Because Sigford’s notices of appeal do not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3), our jurisdiction to entertain his appeal has not been invoked. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). As this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any matters raised by Sigford in his direct appeal, our only recourse is to dismiss the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.