Appellant pled guilty and was convicted by the trial court of forgery and two cases of tampering with government records. The trial court followed the plea agreement and sentenced Appellant in each case to confinement for five years and a fine of $1,000. Appellant received the trial court's permission to appeal a pre-trial motion to recuse and filed timely notices of appeal. However, the general notices of appeal did not meet the requirements of Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(b)(3). After the time for filing notices of appeal had expired, but before briefs were filed, Appellant filed amended notices of appeal complying with Rule 25.2(b)(3). See Rule 25.2(d).

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, stating that once the court lost jurisdiction over an appeal based on the filing of a defective notice of appeal, Rule 25.2(d) could not be used to give the court jurisdiction over the appeal. Campbell v. State, Nos. 05-99-01791-CR, 05-99-01792-CR, 05-99-01793-CR (Tex. App. Dallas, delivered March 1, 2001). The court referenced State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

In Bayless v. State, ___S.W.3d___ (Tex. Crim. App. No. 56-01, delivered December 18, 2002), this Court held that under Rule 25.2(d), a defendant is permitted to file an amended notice of appeal curing any defects in an earlier filed notice. When the Court of Appeals decided this case, it did not have the benefit of this Court's opinion in Bayless. Accordingly, we grant Appellant's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand to that court for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Bayless.

Delivered February 5, 2003

Do not publish