From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carmond v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Feb 23, 2022
No. 04-21-00357-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2022)

Opinion

04-21-00357-CR

02-23-2022

Jorge Yaotzin CARMOND, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee


DO NOT PUBLISH

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR7494 Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

The trial court's certification in this appeal states that this criminal case, "is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal."

Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

In a plea bargain case-that is, a case in which a defendant's plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant-a defendant may appeal only:
(A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,
(B) after getting the trial court's permission to appeal, or
(C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.
Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk's record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The trial court's certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. There is nothing in the record to support a finding that appellant filed written pre-trial motions that were ruled on before trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A). There is also nothing in the record to reflect that the trial court granted permission to appeal. See id. R. 25.2(a)(2)(B). Appellant has not identified with this court any statute that expressly authorizes the specific appeal. See id. R. 25.2(a)(2)(C). The trial court's certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea-bargain case and appellant does not have a right to appeal.

The record reflects that on October 1, 2020, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. This ruling does not provide a basis for a direct appeal absent the trial court's permission. See Mackey v. State, No. 14-13-00112-CR, 2013 WL 777864, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 28, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing criminal defendant's appeal because trial court certification stated it was a plea bargain case and the defendant had no right of appeal, and defendant could not appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea absent the trial court's permission).

We must dismiss an appeal "if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record." See id. R. 25.2(d). We issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial court certification was made part of the appellate record by December 30, 2021. See id.; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No such amended trial court certification has been filed.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).


Summaries of

Carmond v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Feb 23, 2022
No. 04-21-00357-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2022)
Case details for

Carmond v. State

Case Details

Full title:Jorge Yaotzin CARMOND, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Feb 23, 2022

Citations

No. 04-21-00357-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2022)