Opinion

Titus Earl Webster appeals his conviction for delivery of cocaine in an amount less than one gram. Webster pled guilty, as part of a plea agreement, and the trial court sentenced him to eighteen months' confinement in a state jail facility in accordance with the agreement. The trial court also ordered that other pending drug charges be considered in Webster's sentence and dismissed. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.45(a) (Vernon 1994).

In related proceedings held on the same day, Webster pled guilty to another delivery of cocaine offense, and the trial court revoked Webster's community supervision imposed for a previous possession of cocaine conviction. The trial court sentenced Webster to ten years' imprisonment for the possession of cocaine conviction and eighteen months' confinement in a state jail facility for the other delivery of cocaine conviction. The trial court also ordered all sentences to run concurrently. Webster has filed appeals from the judgments in the latter proceedings. We consider those appeals in separate opinions.

Webster's attorney has filed an appellate brief in which he concludes that, after a review of the record and the related law, the appeal is frivolous and without merit. He has evaluated the record and has found no error that arguably supports an appeal. The brief thus meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Webster did not file a response pro se.

In his Anders brief, Webster's counsel on appeal observes this Court is without jurisdiction to consider errors related to Webster's conviction because Webster pled guilty as part of a plea agreement that the trial court followed and he filed a general notice of appeal. If an appeal is from a judgment rendered on the defendant's plea of guilty under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2002), and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, the appellant's notice of appeal must specify: (1) that the appeal concerns a jurisdictional defect, (2) that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or (3) that the trial court granted the appellant permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). A notice of appeal that does not conform to Rule 25.2(b)(3) deprives this Court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Woods v. State, 68 S.W.3d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Because Webster did not file a notice of appeal conforming to the requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3), we are without jurisdiction to consider errors related to his conviction.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held, however, that Rule 25.2(b)(3) does not apply to appeals of issues unrelated to the conviction. Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). For instance, in Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the appellant's notice of appeal, which did not comply with Rule 25.2(b)(3), did not bar the court of appeals from considering the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase.

As we are required to do in a case in which an Anders brief is filed, see Wilson v. State, 40 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, order), we have conducted our own independent review of the record, looking exclusively for errors unrelated to Webster's conviction, and have found none.

We affirm the judgment.

Donald R. Ross

Justice

Date Submitted: July 11, 2002

Date Decided: July 12, 2002

Do Not Publish