With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Happ v. State, 958 S.W.2d 474, 475 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.). Conclusion Appellant’s general notice of appeal fails to confer jurisdiction on this court, and his attempt to raise by this appeal complaints relating to his original deferred adjudication proceeding is untimely. We, therefore, must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 . We further informed appellant that we were concerned about our jurisdiction in this case because under article 42.J 2, section 5(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, no appeal may be taken from the trial court's decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. TexCode Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp.2001). 2 . Tex.R.App. P. 25.2; Salgado v. State, 36 S.W.3d 911, 912 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet. h.) (<HOLDING>); Hulshouser v. State, 967 S.W.2d 866, 868

A: holding that requirements of rule 252 apply to notice of appeal in deferred adjudication proceeding
B: holding that the requirements of rule 3700 apply to resentencing
C: holding that the plaintiffs motion for extension of time to file appeal qualified as a notice of appeal because it met the requirements of rule 4 of the federal rules of appellate procedure
D: holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal
A.