Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court found her guilty and sentenced her to one year confinement and assessed a $1,000 fine pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. Lowry v. State, 48 S.W.3d 309, 310 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2001, pet. filed). Appellant filed a timely general notice of appeal. Three months later, Appellant filed an amended notice of appeal stating her desire to appeal the trial court's denial of her written motion to suppress which was heard and ruled upon before she entered her plea. The Court of Appeals dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 311.
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 310-11. Appellant's general 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 properly amended notice of appeal, filed three months later pursuant to Appellate Rule 25.2(d), was untimely and, therefore, did not confer jurisdiction over the appeal. Id. at 311-12 (citing State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 413-14 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000)). Because neither Appellant's general notice of appeal nor her 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. Ground two of Appellant's petition for discretionary review is therefore granted. (1) 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DO NOT PUBLISH
1. Appellant's remaining ground for review is refused.