Randall Fulton Legros v. State of Texas

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-01-358 CR ____________________ RANDALL FULTON LeGROS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 82517 MEMORANDUM OPINION Randall Fulton LeGros was charged with arson. See Tex. Pen Code Ann. § 28.02 (Vernon Supp. 2002). Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, he was placed on ten years' deferred adjudication and fined $500.00. LeGros filed a verified motion for new trial alleging that he was insane at the time of the offense, that evidence of his insanity was not presented by defense counsel, that he was not guilty of the offense charged, and that he did not freely and voluntarily enter his plea. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing seven days after it was filed. LeGros filed a general notice of appeal. In his sole issue LeGros contends the trial court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion. We are required to first address our jurisdiction in this case. Appellate Rule 25.2(b)(3) prescribes the form and sufficiency of a notice of appeal in a criminal case taken from a judgment rendered on defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere when the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). In such instance, the notice of appeal is required to specify: A) that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; B) that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or C) that the trial court granted permission to appeal. The notice here does not comply with the Rule. The record shows a plea bargain, with the State's agreed recommendation being ten years' deferred adjudication and the trial court's judgment in conformity therewith. In Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a notice which does not comply with the requirements of 25.2(b)(3), fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. (1) As this court lacks jurisdiction to consider any matters raised by LeGros, we must dismiss the appeal. See Sigford v. State, 72 S.W.3d 679, 680 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, pet. ref'd). APPEAL DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on September 24, 2002 Opinion Delivered October 16, 2002 Do Not Publish Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, J.J. 1. We note that in Donovan v. State, 68 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that where deferred adjudication is ordered, the trial court has no authority to consider a motion for new trial before adjudication.