Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon pursuant to a plea agreement. Appellant entered a negotiated plea for two-years' deferred adjudication and 240 hours community service. Appellant subsequently violated the conditions of his supervision and his guilt was adjudicated. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years, five years more than bargained for in the plea agreement. Consequently, Appellant was granted a new trial as to punishment only. Following a new negotiated plea, the trial court entered a new judgment adjudicating guilt and assessed a punishment of ten-years' confinement in accordance with the new agreement. Appellant then filed a general notice of appeal, asserting the trial court granted him permission to appeal due to other errors that might accrue. Four months later, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal alleging a jurisdictional defect. Junious v. State, No. 14-99-1247-CR (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.], delivered April 26, 2001). The Court of Appeals dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id., slip op. at 3.
Specifically, the court noted that where a defendant pleads nolo contendere and is sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the defendant must file a notice of appeal that meets the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Prodecure 25.2(b)(3). Id. at 3-4. Appellant's notice of appeal did not state that the appeal was for a jurisdictional defect or that the substance of the appeal was raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. The amended notice of appeal, filed four months later pursuant to Appellate Rule 25.2(d), attempted to cure the defects of the general notice "by excepting to the October 22, 1999, judgment . . . by virtue of a jurisdictional defect." However, the court held, amendments to a notice of appeal made pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) cannot suffice to confer jurisdiction over an appeal. Id. at 5 (citing State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 413-14 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000)). Because neither Appellant's general notice of appeal nor his amended notice invoked the court's jurisdiction, the court dismissed Appellant's appeal. Id.
This Court has recently held that if a defendant files a timely general notice of appeal, amendments to the notice can be made anytime prior to the filing of the defendant's brief. Tex.R.App.Proc. 25(d); Bayless v. State, S.W.3d (Tex. Crim. App., No. 056-01, delivered December 18, 2002). The Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of this Court's decision in Bayless when it issued its opinion. Appellant's petition for discretionary review is therefore granted. We vacate the Court of Appeal's judgment and remand this cause for reconsideration in light of Bayless.
DELIVERED: January 29, 2003
DO NOT PUBLISH