IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-02-299-CR

     TAMMY ALEXANDER,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                              Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 2002-164-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Tammy Alexander pleaded guilty to three counts of injury to a child. Pursuant to the State’s plea recommendation, the court assessed Alexander’s punishment at ten years’ imprisonment, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed her on community supervision for ten years.

      Alexander filed a general notice of appeal. To properly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court over an appeal from a negotiated guilty plea, an appellant must file a notice of appeal which complies with Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3). White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Alexander’s general notice of appeal does not. Accordingly, we dismiss Alexander’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                         PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Gray

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Opinion delivered and filed December 11, 2002

Do not publish

[CR25]

t, the required pretest screening for factors other than alcohol that potentially contribute to nystagmus, such as other drugs, nerve disorders or brain damage.

      Officer Martinez testified that he is certified to perform the test from the State, from Fort Worth and the [DWI] school. More specifically, he testified he was certified by the State in 1990; and he attended another DWI class in 1993 or 1994, from which he obtained further certification. Officer Martinez's testimony that he was certified by the State is uncontradicted. The officer described how he administered the HGN test. He inquired whether Appellant had any eye problems before conducting the test. He tested Appellant without light in his eyes and he tested each eye twice. He knew how to conduct the HGN properly, having tested some 100 subjects, and he administered the field sobriety tests in the same manner every time he used them.

      Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) sets the standard for the admission of testimony concerning HGN test evidence:

For testimony concerning a defendant's performance on the HGN test to be admissible, it must be shown that the witness testifying is qualified as an expert on the HGN test, specifically concerning its administration and technique. In the case of a police officer, this requirement will be satisfied by proof that the officer has received practitioner certification by the State of Texas to administer the HGN. A witness qualified as an expert on the administration and technique of the HGN test may testify concerning a defendant's performance on the HGN test, but may not correlate the defendant's performance to a precise blood alcohol content.

      In this case the trial court properly admitted the HGN test and Appellant's test results. Officer Martinez was certified by the State, and he followed the proper procedures he had learned in order to obtain certification. He screened out other factors affecting the HGN test.

      Appellant point is overruled. The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                               FRANK G. McDONALD

                                                                               Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Cummings and

      Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 2, 1998

Do not publish