Michael Toliver Jordan v. State

11th Court of Appeals Eastland, Texas Opinion Michael Toliver Jordan Appellant Vs. No. 11-01-00385-CR -- Appeal from Dallas County State of Texas Appellee The trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of the offense of theft. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed appellant=s punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for 180 days and a fine of $1,500. Appellant filed a Ageneral@ notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. In order to perfect an appeal in a situation where a guilty plea has been entered and punishment has been assessed pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the notice of appeal must specify one of the following: that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect, that the substance of the appeal was raised by a written motion and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(b)(3); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880 (Tex.Cr.App.2001). Appellant failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3) when he filed a general notice of appeal. In the interest of justice, we will address appellant=s arguments under his third issue. There, while he challenges the effectiveness of trial counsel, appellant also contends that his plea bargain agreement was not followed by the trial court. The record reflects that the number A240" was originally written on the plea agreement form, that a line was then drawn through the number A240," and the number A180" was substituted as the length of confinement. The written plea papers signed by appellant, his counsel, the State, and the trial court state that the agreed punishment was confinement for 180 days in a state jail facility and a fine of $1,500. The trial court stated the length of confinement in open court as 240 days; however, the judgment reflects the agreed length of 180 days. We hold that the written pronouncement in the judgment of confinement for 180 days and a fine of $1,500 accurately reflects the plea bargain agreement reached by appellant, his counsel, the State, and the trial court as shown in the record before us. Appellant=s reliance on Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326 (Tex.Cr.App.1998) is misplaced. See Tackett v. State, 989 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet=n ref=d). See also Veteto v. State, 8 S.W.3d 805, 818 n.6 (Tex.App. - Waco 2000, pet=n ref=d); Galvan v. State, 995 S.W.2d 764, 765 (Tex.App. - San Antonio 1999, no pet=n). Because appellant failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3), the appellate jurisdiction of this court has not been invoked. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424 (Tex.Cr.App.2001). We are without authority to consider appellant=s three issues on appeal. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM July 18, 2002 Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b). Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and Wright, J., and McCall, J.