Bolainez, Miguel Angel v. State

Dismissed and Opinion filed November 27, 2002 Dismissed and Opinion filed November 27, 2002. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NOS. 14-02-00866-CR; 14-02-00867-CR; 14-02-00868-CR ____________ MIGUEL ANGEL BOLAINEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 351st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 878,200; 878,205 & 878,203 M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N Appellant pled guilty to three counts of aggravated sexual assault. In accordance with the terms of plea bargain agreements with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant on June 26, 2002, to imprisonment for life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Because we have no jurisdiction over these appeals, we dismiss. To invoke an appellate court=s jurisdiction over an appeal, an appellant must give timely and proper notice of appeal. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Appellant filed timely general notices of appeal that did not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Rule 25.2(b)(3) provides that when an appeal is from a judgment rendered on a defendant=s plea of guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the State and agreed to by the defendant, the notice of appeal must: (1) specify that the appeal is for a jurisdictional defect; (2) specify that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial; or (3) state that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Id. The time for filing a proper notice of appeal has expired; thus appellant may not file amended notices of appeal to correct jurisdictional defects. State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 413-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Because appellant=s notices of appeal did not comply with the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3), we are without jurisdiction to consider any of appellant=s issues, including the voluntariness of the pleas. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.2d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that appellant who files general notice of appeal may not appeal voluntariness of negotiated plea). Alternatively, we dismiss these appeals because appellant waived his right to appeal. Appellant pled guilty and the trial court followed the plea bargain agreements in assessing punishment. Despite having waived the right to appeal, appellant filed notices of appeal. Appellant chose to enter into an agreement that included a waiver of the right to appeal. Appellant was informed of his right to appeal, knew with certainty the punishment he would receive, and that he could withdraw his plea if the trial court did not act in accordance with the plea agreement. As appellant was fully aware of the consequences when he waived his right to appeal, it is Anot unfair to expect him to live with those consequences now.@ Alzarka v. State, 60 S.W.3d 203, 206 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] July 26, 2001, pet. granted) (quoting Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 104 S.Ct. 2543, 2547-48, 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984)). See also Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Buck v. State, 45 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Judgment rendered and Opinion filed November 27, 2002. Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman. Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).